 Erddangodraeth Fyraig wedi gynhyrch i chi i dim i gael i'r mosiad ystod yn y gynhyrch. Mae'n gweld yn dweud i gyfraid y sefydling ar y Fyrygiad Bwysigol. Rwyf i'n ffrindio'r Fyrufa Gweithwyr Mlygaid i gyffredinol i gyffredinol i gyffredinol mynd nôr i gyffredinol a gyffredinol i gyffredinol i gyffredinol i gyffredinol di gael i gyffredinol 3. Wrth gwrs, mae ein bwysig o bobl mewn healthyr amser i Scotland o fyw, gyda'r ddwellig yn ddaing rydyn ni'n sicrhau i gyfranchidd yn gyfranchidd, gyda'i ddwellig yn gyfranchidd, gan gynnwys, ond i gyd yn gyfranchidd, gylch, aelod, aelod continuar aelod, ac yn gyfranchidd, gyda ei gynhyrchu, ac yn gwybodaeth gwybodaeth y bydder? Rydyn ni'n gynhyrch gyda'r gyrdd dd sequch aelod aelod aelod, ac yn gwybodaeth aelod yn gwybodaeth, yn gwybodaeth aelod aelod, i jae importeb ddweagau ar gyfer ddarpariod o a Waheddon cyllidegar y gwaith y fawr ar y cyflinogaeth, the budget will invest in our public services and our people and in our businesses to enable them to develop and thrive. We set out a bold and ambitious agenda in the programme for government and this budget provides the resources necessary to deliver that vision. Our public services require a strong economy but equally the most successful economies ond yn gyntafol yn wandtwch i gael ei trofnodd trofnodd o ffaintydd o Szinol, warned ajudu i gael gwir y perthyniad lleiwadau, ac yn gwneud i gaelwyr syddech castig aynlinegio amser yn gweithio aunrhywbeth i gaelwyr i gyfl films o wneud yn ddefolishio. Felly mae'n rhaid i gwneud sydd gwirio i ymddyntau cael ei risu mai ddefolishio, ac mae'n glasig o bobl sy'n rhaid i wneud i gaelwyr i gaelwyr agensiwni a ddiszcwmach yn y bwysig iawn. Gwetheigf cael 64 per cent o ffordd i cysylltiadau i gael gwleisiau eraill oedig yn bwysig iawn i unig oeson o bwysig iawn i eithaf, i adeiladodag pwysig iawn o'r newis cwmhoedd, i gyrdd mewn newydd o'r Sglwtland Sgolnau, a gysylltu digwydd 18 mwy i hyn o'r newid unigol rhagorol am gallu athlwn aran o fabryd y dygwunio, a dwi'n dod 222 mwy o the funding allocated to the city region deals. In total, when investing £4 billion in infrastructure with £1.2 billion for our transport system, including turning the A9 into an electric highway and delivering new railway investments such as the electric trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Among the views of Parliament, I am sure that all will welcome the news that I have reached to deal with the Northern Isles council leaders on the support for the internal ferries for the Northern Isles. In light of that agreement, and as part of a wider agreement with the Scottish Green Party on the budget, I will allocate an additional £10.5 million to Shetland and Orkney island councils in 1819, while we continue to explore a long-term model of fair funding. Presiding Officer, Scotland has a world-reading reputation of our efforts to tackle climate change to support our transition to a low-carbon economy. The budget delivers £137 million for energy efficiency and heat decarbonisation and confirms £600 million of investment in our R100 programme to make superfast broadband available to every home and business premise in Scotland. It allocates £60 million for a low-carbon innovation fund, £20 million to support the transition to electric vehicles and support more green buses and doubles investment in active and sustainable travel. The proportion of the Scottish Government capital budget that is spent on low-carbon is increasing from 21 per cent to 29 per cent. As part of my agreement with the Scottish Green Party, we will continue to increase year on year the proportion of our capital budget that is spent on low-carbon projects beyond this year's budget. I also intend to provide an additional £2 million of capital to the Home Energy Efficiency programme, a further £2 million to explore a proposal for a pipeline fund for local rail projects and to provide the funding necessary to accelerate the delivery of the four marine protected areas. If we are to achieve our full potential, we must do more to address the inequalities that exist in our society. Regrettably, we do not have many of the levers necessary to do that, but we will do all we can to mitigate the worst impacts of UK Government welfare reform with £100 million of support. The attainment Scotland fund will increase to £179 million, including £10 million to provide support to children and young people with complex additional support needs. Total investment of £243 million will support the expansion of publicly funded early learning and childcare entitlement. In 1819, we will invest £10 million and an ending homelessness together fund at the first investment in a new £50 million tackling child poverty fund, which will help to address the underlying social and economic causes of poverty. Alongside the draft budget, we published a fair and progressive public sector pay policy. We were already the only Government in the UK to lift the pay cap and offer a real pay rise to our public sector staff. Today, I can confirm that we will go further. I will increase the threshold for the 3 per cent uplift to £36,500, increasing the proportion of staff groups that receive the inflationary pay increase from 51 per cent to 75 per cent. That will include nearly 80 per cent of NHS staff and a vast majority of our teachers. That policy also provides for an increase of up to 2 per cent on the pay bill for those earning between £36,500 and £80,000. Again, I urge the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly to follow our lead and recognise public sector staff. In our draft budget, I also set out proposals for progressive taxation that offer significant protection to the lower paid. Under my proposal to introduce new starter and intermediate rates, as well as the increase in the personal allowance, no one earning less than £33,000 will pay any more than they did last year. More than half of all taxpayers will pay less than if they lived in the rest of the UK. Those changes combined with an increase in the higher rate threshold and changes to the personal allowance create an anomaly, where a small number of higher rate taxpayers would have seen their bills reduce. I can confirm today that I will act to remove that anomaly. Rather than my initial proposal, I will instead increase the higher rate threshold by 1 per cent to £43,438. That will raise around £55 million over and above the draft budget proposal, with final costings to be determined. Overall, our tax decisions deliver an additional £420 million to protect the NHS, invest in Scotland's public services and support our economy. Not at this moment. I have previously set out in detail why the local government settlement we proposed was a fair one. However, I have consistently said that I am willing to compromise and find common ground. Through constructive discussions, I have been able to do so. I intend to use the additional £55 million of tax revenues to underpin the delivery of local services. I also plan to utilise an element of funding that is available in the Scotland reserve and a level of additional underspend from 1718 to further support local government. Those decisions have enabled me to identify an additional £159.5 million of funding to add to the local government settlement to ensure that the revenue settlement, along with the capital settlement, receives real-terms growth. Of course, local authorities are also able to raise an additional £77 million from council tax. £34.5 million of that additional money will be allocated in 1718. Two local authorities in the balance of £125 million will be allocated as an amendment to the budget bill at stage 2. We will return in three weeks' time to debate the Scottish rate resolution that underpins those spending plans. Their tax proposals safeguarded the lowest earning taxpayers and coupled with our spending decisions will protect and grow the economy. They ensure—of course—murder freezer. For giving way, in light of the new changes that he is making to income tax, what is the additional income tax liability now as a result of all his plans compared to the liability elsewhere in the United Kingdom? As I have said repeatedly, 55 per cent—a majority of people in Scotland—will pay less tax by living in Scotland than they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Seventy per cent of taxpayers pay less. We are also turning a real-terms cut to Scotland's resource budget into growth for our public services as a consequence of the tax decisions that we are making. That protects our public services and invests more in our public services. Our business rates package is also the most generous of anywhere in the United Kingdom, a boost of £100 million. We still have lower average council tax bills, and no one in Scotland pays tax on ill health through prescription charges, or ability to learn through tuition fees. Those decisions on tax have therefore enabled me to reverse that real-terms cut from Westminster to Scotland that the Tories have imposed on our resource budget. James Kelly Can the cabinet secretary perhaps tell us what measures he is going to announce today that is going to do something to tackle the scandalous figure of 260,000 children living in child poverty? The first thing that I will do is present a coherent and competent budget to the Scottish Parliament that invests more for housing, more for support, more to protect people from the welfare reductions coming from the Tory Government, more to invest in the health service and tackle inequality through progressive taxation and the right decisions, not the chaos coming from the Labour party and James Kelly. As I have said, Scottish taxpayers in this progressive system of taxation, yes, there is divergence from the UK. It will protect our public services that are free at the point of use, including free prescriptions. It will protect free personal care, free higher education, no business rates for 100,000 properties, reducing the attainment gap, the doubling of free childcare, the delivery of 50,000 new affordable homes, above inflation investment in police, above inflation investment in our universities and colleges, above inflation investment in local government services the length and breadth of Scotland, and perhaps most importantly, as a result of our actions, we are able to deliver on all of our commitments and invest an additional £400 million in Scotland's national health service. With all of this investment, this Government is delivering the best deal for taxpayers in the whole of the UK. For our economy, for our communities and the wellbeing of our nation, I commend the principles of this budget bill to the Parliament and I move the motion in my name. I call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment 10183.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by moving the amendment in my name? Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard the news just a couple of hours ago. The ever-faithful Patrick Harvie has once again saved the SNP's bacon. The always-willing Scottish Greens are there to do their master's bidding. The Holy Own subsidiary has had its orders from head office and after the usual pretense of playing hardball with choreography that the greatest showmen would be proud of, they fell sweetly into line exactly as was planned all along. The price for this will, of course, be paid by hardworking Scottish taxpayers, not the high earners but families struggling to get by. Mr Mackay with his hand in one pocket and Patrick Harvie with his hand in the other. The perception, if you are a talented person sitting in London, Manchester or Birmingham and Scotland wants to attract you, is that you might think that Scotland is a high tax economy. Not my words, Presiding Officer, but those of Sir Tom Hunter, one of Scotland's leading business figures. Or, as Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce has put it, if Scottish businesses are taxed more and Scottish-based staff are taxed more, that would not seem to be a situation designed to attract investment and grow Scotland's economy. They should listen, Presiding Officer, to what Scottish businesses are telling them. This is a budget that can be summed up in four words. Pay more, get less. It is a budget with the SNP of broken their promise to the taxpayers of Scotland not to increase income tax for those paying the basic rate. It is a budget that will nevertheless deliver cuts to services across Scotland. That promise on income tax—I need to hardly remember the chamber—remind the chamber, was made in the SNP manifesto in 2016 and has been repeated since then some 53 times in the past two years. Nicola Sturgeon said it 10 times. Derek Mackay said it at least 10 times. John Swinney at least five times. Let me complete this list and I'll give way to Mr Mackay. It was repeated by Keith Brown, Humza Yousaf, Marie Toad, James Dornan, Ivan McKee, Gillian Martin, Joan McAlpine, Paul Wheelhouse and Angus Robertson. Mr Mackay can be their spokesman and apologise for breaking his manifesto pledge. Derek Mackay. To meet the Tories tax proposals, where do the Tories proposed to cut £556 million, which should be a consequence of following your tax proposals? Martel Fraser. It is dead simple. We have cut out the waste, we have cut out the vanity projects and we grow the Scottish economy. That is what you should be doing. At the same time, as the taxes are going up, people across Scotland will see their services cuts. It is notwithstanding what we had today about the financial settlement for local government, councils across Scotland are still having to look at service cuts. Reducing classroom assistance, scrapping school crossing patrollers, reductions in services for children with disabilities, reductions in older people services, reducing waste collections all to the result of the choices being made by the Scottish National Party Government. That budget cuts spending on motorways and trunk roads by £136 million. That might be good news to Patrick Harvie's ears, but it is not what businesses and motorists across Scotland want to hear. That is a budget that cuts spending on digital connectivity. It is supposedly a key priority for this Government by more than half a reduction of £76 million. It did not need to be like this, Presiding Officer, because the Westminster block grant is up in real terms compared to previous years. According to both Spice and the Fraser Valander Institute, it does not want to listen to the experts, Presiding Officer. It does not want to listen to those who know. Indeed, the finance secretary himself at the Finance and Constitution Committee just two weeks ago accepted that his block grant for discretionary spending is increasing over the next two years, so any cuts being made—I have given away once already, I need to make some progress—is on the record. He can read it for himself. Any cuts being made, any tax increases are purely the result of SNP choices and no one else's responsibility. When we hear SNP members talk about austerity, let us be clear of the fact that the Fraser Valander Institute stated that, in real terms, the discretionary spend of the Scottish Government is equivalent to what it was in 2006-07, the year that it took office. Over 10 years of the SNP Government, there has been no real terms cut in its discretionary spending. That is an undeniable fact, and it puts into context everything that it hears about austerity and cuts from the SNP. In many ways, the real story of the budget came not in the statements from the finance secretary, but in the publication last month by the Scottish Fiscal Commission of its forecast for economic growth in Scotland. Those were deeply worrying. For what they told us was that they predicted that the SNP-running economy in Scotland will fail to match UK growth in each of the next five years. In 2018, the SNP-running economy in Scotland will grow at one-half the rate of the UK economy, and it is projected to have the lowest growth of any major economy in the next three years, the lowest of any in the EU, the lowest of any in the G20 and the lowest of any in the OECD over the next three years. That failure to match even the average UK economic growth for the period 2007 to 2022 will amount to a growth gap in Scotland worth a staggering £16.5 billion in cash terms. What we need to do is put growing the economy first. That is the way that we generate the tax revenues that we need. That is why the message from every business organisation in advance of this budget was the same. Do not increase the tax burden. The Federation of Small Business, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the CBI in Scotland, Scottish Engineering and the Scottish Retail Consortium all warned that taking money out of people's pockets and reducing consumer spending at a time when we need to be kickstarting economic growth is not the way to go. Even business for Scotland, the independent supporting lobby group, backed that call not to increase income tax. The SNP used to agree with us. It used to say that it was possible to use tax as a lever to grow the economy and generate additional tax receipts. Alex Salmond and John Swinney used to argue for lower co-operation tax. SNP MPs in the north-east, back in the days when there was more than one of them, used to argue for tax cuts for the North Sea oil industry. In 2016, 44 SNP MPs—yes, there used to be 44 of them—called for a reduction in VAT in tourism, a call echoed by Richard Lockhead in February last year. In 2012, Fiona Hyslop demanded a reduction in VAT on repair and maintenance costs and was backed by Alex Neil. Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Derek Mackay have all argued for a cut in air passenger duty to boost economic growth. A call backed by John Mason in a motion in this Parliament just two weeks ago. They are happy to call for tax cuts when it suits them, but when they get power over taxation, they break their promises and put taxes up. What this budget should have been is a programme for growth. It should have concentrated on cutting out the waste in the Scottish Government. £132 million spent on delayed discharge in the NHS. £170 million spent on agency staff in the NHS due to poor workforce planning. £180 million for an IT system for farm payments that does not work. They should have cut out the vanity projects and they should have concentrated on growing the economy. Two weeks ago, in his now notorious party political broadcast, we were asked, what have the SNP ever done for us? They have broken their promise on tax, cut services and ignored the interests of the business community and the Scottish economy. This is not a budget fit for purpose. It is bad for business, it is bad for the economy, it is bad for taxpayers, it is bad for families and it is bad for services, and that is why this Parliament should reject it. I now call James Kelly to speak to and move amendment 10183.2 at eight minutes, please. I move the reason amendment in my name. Let me say at the outset that this budget falls well short of what is required. There is a lack of investment in public services. It does not properly fund fair pay for public sector workers. It lacks ambition in tackling child poverty and it does not alleviate the growing crisis in the NHS. The grubby deal that has been announced today by Derek Mackay, the green SNP deal, just does not cut it. The budget falls short and the deal will be condemned by local communities faced with cuts to lifeline services. It will be criticised by workers who have endured years of being about below inflation rises and it will be rejected by families whose children are living in poverty and do not have enough money to properly feed and clothe their kids. Scotland's communities have been sold short by the SNP and the Greens today. The basis of Labour are asking Parliament to endorse the reason amendment, the basis of which is explicit support for Labour's £1 billion plan, which would protect—no, thank you, not at this time—protect lifeline services, invest £100 million in the NHS, increase child benefit by £5 for every child and introduce a properly funded public sector pay policy. Instead, we have the SNP tinkering around the edges. Labour would introduce a radical taxation system. I thank James Kelly for taking the intervention. Those proposals are predicated largely on an income tax policy. James Kelly, to what extent behavioural change was taken into account at arriving at your income tax policy? We worked on that policy with the expert spice at the Scottish Parliament Information Centre. The fundamental difference between our policy and your policy, which has been supported today by the Greens, is that we will ask top rate payers to pay £50. Those are earning more than £100,000. It is not unreasonable to ask when lifeline services are on their knees, when the NHS is in crisis. I have to say that I am really taking her back with the Greens, whose manifesto pledge is a top rate tax of £60. It is today signed up to a tax policy of a top rate of £46. It really has been sold short. I think that you have to… In terms of what has been announced today by the cabinet secretary, going back to before the draft budget was introduced, COSLA made it absolutely clear that to get to a standstill position on the cuts, it needed £545 million. Do not forget that local councils had been penalised to the tune of £1.5 billion since 2011. Of that, we will continue to see job losses forecast at £28,000 in the coming period. We will continue to see a reduction in teachers and classroom assistance. How can you possibly grow the economy, as Mr Mackay was suggesting, if you are draining resources out of the education system? Crucially, we will see, as we see in my area, a reduction in library services under mining the ability of young kids to improve their learning potential. Once more and again, the SNP failed to deliver in terms of local communities and in terms of front-line services. We have heard in recent weeks about the continued crisis in the NHS, particularly in relation to delayed discharge, £132 million being spent keeping patients in hospital who are fit enough to be released. That is resulting in 532,000 days lost across the year, and the average of 1,400 beds in a year is enough to more than fill the Queen Elizabeth University hospital. That is a real crisis in the NHS, and that is why Labour has pledged specific spending in order to address that crisis. Despite my intervention that Mr Mackay did not mention in his speech, he was that of the scandalous figure of 260,000 young people living in child poverty. That is why Scottish Labour endorses the Give Me Five campaign, the £5 increase to every child. We heard from the poverty lines how we have families in this country who do not have enough to spend on fresh food. I have to send their kids out to school in this appalling winter weather with shoes that I have got leaks in them. Surely we can do better than that as a modern country in the 21st century. Surely it is time that the SNP stepped up to the mark and used the powers of the Parliament. Despite the announcements made today in public sector pay, the reality is that there has been a lack of transparency on that. Mr Mackay has not been clear about how that has been funded, and councils in particular have been left in a position where you have announced a policy and you have not provided any money in order to fund that policy. The approach of the SNP and the Greens has simply been to tinker around the edges on the budget. The Conservatives are almost a Trump-like approach. They would prefer to run taxation down to the lower levels. If it results in a situation where a council worker and you lose your job, you are living in a home that is not fit for purpose, you see your local library closed and so be it, as far as the Conservatives are concerned. In summing up, Labour's £960 million investment plan is a progressive plan that tackles the issues that are a fruit in this country and deals with the issues of lack of funding for lifeline services that will help to tackle child poverty, that will properly fund public sector pay and will make a real difference in local communities. Labour will oppose the budget all the way to stage 3, because it tinkers. It does not meet the challenges. I ask Parliament to support the reasoned amendment and support Labour's alternative budget. I now call Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee up to eight minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There is a bit of change in tone during my contribution on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee, but I am sure that things will resume as normal once I sit down. One of the strengths of the parliamentary committee system allows us, when we work collegially, to tackle some of the more complex challenges that we face as parliamentarians. I sincerely believe that the Finance and Constitution Committee's report on the draft budget is a very good example of that approach. I am delighted that my colleagues on the committee have once again put our political differences to one side and produced a unanimous report by contrast from today. That is significant because it allows us to work together, grappling with some of the very challenging and complex issues arising from the operation of the fiscal framework. As colleagues are aware, the operation of the fiscal framework is now very much an important element in determining how much money is available to the Scottish Government. Colleagues will equally be aware that the framework is a challenge to comprehend. Presiding Officer, we are therefore sought in our report to provide some clarity and therefore greater transparency on how the framework works. With some foreboding, I will try to do the same now if colleagues will bear with me. As a starting point, let me say that the budget is now subject to a greater degree of volatility and uncertainty arising from increased dependence on the performance of the Scottish economy. That is because there is obviously a strong correlation between economic growth and the growth in income tax revenues. Under the fiscal framework, the size of the Scottish budget will be dependent on the relative growth rate of tax revenues in Scotland compared with the rest of the UK. The block grant is now adjusted to reflect the annual growth and revenues per capita in the rest of the United Kingdom for those taxes that have been devolved to Scotland. If those tax revenues in the UK continue to grow, the reduction in our block grant will also grow. That means that we need at least a similar level of growth in revenues per capita from the Scottish taxis in order to protect the Scottish Government's budget. Well, that is complex enough, Presiding Officer. It is further complicated by the dependence on the budget of two sets of independent forecasts. First, the forecast carried out by the Scottish Fiscal Commission for devolved taxes. Secondly, the forecast carried out by the Office of Budget Responsibility for the Equivalent Taxes in the rest of the United Kingdom. The SFC forecast determined how much tax revenues are available to the Scottish Government in deciding its spending proposals in its draft budget. The OBR forecasts informed the size of the adjustments to the block grant. Critically, as we highlight in our report, that means that the budget is subject to a degree of risk arising from forecast error. To some extent, that risk is lessened if there is a similar level of forecast error by both the SFC and the OBR. If both forecasting bodies turn out to have been overly optimistic or unduly pessimistic, then the net impact on the budget will be minimal. A bigger risk occurs if there is significant variation in any of the forecast error between the two bodies. For example, if the OBR turned out to be pessimistic about tax revenues in the UK while the SFC turned out to have been more optimistic about taxis than reality, then the risk to the public sector increases. Of course, if the opposite were to transpire, then the public finances of Scotland could be boosted by an unexpected bonus. As you see, it is all pretty simple. It is important to recognise that this is not intended to be a criticism of either the Scottish Fiscal Commission or the Office of Budget Responsibility. Rather, it is simply to highlight the critical point that the budget is now significantly dependent on forecasts. It is inevitable that, to some extent, those forecasts will be incorrect in the future, because forecasts often are. Recognising that, the fiscal framework provides the Scottish Government with the power to borrow up to £300 million annually to address the forecast error with an overall statutory limit of £1.75 billion. One key issue that the committee is keen to understand more clearly is the relationship between economic growth and tax revenue growth. Robert Chote, the chairman of the OBR, told us that weaker GDP growth means weaker growth in all major tax bases. However, despite relatively pessimistic GDP growth forecasts, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is forecasting income tax revenues per capita will grow at the same rate in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Some of that might be explained by higher employment and wage growth, but the committee has asked the Scottish Fiscal Commission to explain in more detail how it arrived at its conclusions. We are now entering a new period of devolution in which our Parliament is responsible for raising much of its revenue to fund our public services. That requires us all to rise to the challenge of using those new powers wisely and to manage the inevitable risks with the pragmatic and reasonable approach that our draft budget report is intended to support that process. Moving forward, the helpful recommendations in the budget process review group, which we fully support, will enhance further effective budget scrutiny in future years. We welcome the commitment from the cabinet secretary to fully implement the recommendations. The changes to the draft budget, which have already been implemented to date, have improved the transparency of the process already, but there is much work still to do in delivering a more effective budget process in response to the increased complexity of fiscal devolution. That will require the support of colleagues from across the chamber, and that is why the committee has asked the Scottish Parliament corporate body to look at what additional support can be provided to members. There is also clearly a need for the Parliament and Government to take a longer-term view of the public finances, and the introduction of the Government's medium-term financial strategy this spring should start to provide that. The Scottish Government will also set out its broad financial plans for the next five years following the UK Government's spring financial settlement. That should assist the Parliament in adopting a longer-term outlook, including addressing fiscal constraints and the impact of increased demand. The committee will provide revised guidelines to subject committees in due course on how the new budget process will work prior to the medium-term financial strategy being published. I appreciate that none of this is easy and that it will require a significant degree of effort from us all to understand the complexities. As highlighted by the review group, it will require a cultural change as well as a procedural change. It is a challenge, but I am confident that we can rise to that challenge to ensure effective scrutiny of an increasingly complex budget process. We now move to the open debate. Speeches of six minutes, please. I have a little leeway for interventions, and I call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Willie Rennie. Back in October, our party conference gave us a clear task for the budget process. We could not vote for a budget that contained unjustified and unsustainable cuts to aviation tax, while that absurd policy has been shelled for the coming year. We will continue to press the Government to scrap it altogether. We could not vote for a budget that continued to throw money at high-carbon capital projects. We know that we are supposed to be aiming at a 70 per cent low-carbon capital spend. That cannot be achieved overnight, but as a result of our work on this budget, the budget makes real change for the better, with low-carbon rising from 21 per cent to 29 per cent as a share of the budget. More than that, we have secured a commitment that this increase will continue year on year throughout the current Parliament, alongside additional progress on rail, on fuel poverty and on protecting the marine environment. We could not vote for a budget that continued the 1 per cent pay cap on public sector workers. We made clear that an inflation-based increase was necessary and an above inflation increase was justified. We continue to take that view. The progress that has been made in negotiations, increasing the threshold for the inflation-based offer to £36,500 and now covering 75 per cent of those people affected, is a significant and welcome step. The result is still not ideal, and we continue to believe that our restoration in the value of public sector pay is fully justified. While the progress that today's announcement represents is welcome and will allow us to vote for the budget, we will continue to back those unions arguing for an above inflation settlement. If, as I hope, they are successful in making the case, the cabinet secretary will need to return to Parliament to find a solution. We also made clear that local government, once again showing up near the bottom of the priority list when the draft budget was published, deserves better. We consistently pointed to the SPICE analysis, showing a real-terms cut of £157 million. Although the finance secretary did not accept that assessment, we were very clear that we could not vote for a budget that imposed that cut or ignored the other pressures that local government is facing. Those other pressures come in increased demand and expectation for a fairer pay settlement than the 2 per cent that most councils have already been budgeting for and some specific local issues such as the entire island ferries in Orkney and Shetland. Today's total £170 million package is substantial, more than reversing the cut and leaving councils across Scotland in a stronger position to meet those pressures ahead. I'll take an intervention. Excuse me, Mr Smith. You don't have your card in the appropriate slot. Please start your question again. Given that much of the proposed local government settlement in the budget is for new additional responsibilities such as childcare or £66 million to be transferred to IGB, can Mr Harvie tell us what his analysis shows, how many hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts will local councils have to make and how many thousands of jobs will be lost as a direct result of this budget? Patrick Harvie. We are very clear that the £157 million cut has been more than reversed and we will see that as the local government finance orders are presented. That reversal package is substantial. We will never, as the Scottish Government does, treat local choices over council tax as part of the national funding package. Nevertheless, it is true that those councils that decide to increase their council tax revenue will also gain additional flexibility about investing in services. Last year, we reversed £160 million cut to local services and, according to SPICE, that resulted in a settlement that was broadly flat in real terms instead of a drastic cut. This year, we have gone further with £170 million package for local government, as well as the progress that we have made on pay and on low-carbon investment. That has been made possible because of our redesign of income tax powers, which have shifted the debate fundamentally since we first proposed change in 2016. The Conservatives still want tax cuts for the richest, stripping £0.5 billion out of our public services. But nobody is now talking about increases for all basic-rate taxpayers. The green argument has been leading the change on tax policy, showing that we can raise additional revenue while protecting people on low and middle incomes. On tax, as on pay, I acknowledge that I urged the Government to go further, but the progress that is announced today will make a meaningful difference in people's lives and in public services in every community of this country. That is what results when Opposition parties accept both the responsibility and the opportunity that present themselves in a period of minority government. I would like to make two final points, Presiding Officer. There is a strong case for early and positive constructive engagement in the budget process, both to avoid last-minute brinkmanship by the Government and to avoid the futile activity of Opposition parties producing dramatic new proposals at the very last minute, too late to make meaningful negotiation even possible. I repeat my suggestion that Opposition parties should be called to give evidence to the finance committee as part of budget scrutiny. Those Opposition parties whose proposals are ultimately taken up by the Government— Excuse me, can we have a bit of quiet, please? Mr Harvie is just rounding off his contribution. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Those Opposition proposals that are ultimately taken up by the Government deserve to be subject to proper scrutiny, and those parties that choose not to engage with serious proposals would lose some of their later grandstanding opportunities. Finally, Presiding Officer, naming no names. This year's budget negotiations, like last year's, have been dominated by the issue of local government funding. How much do councils need for their cross-services? Are responsibilities properly resourced? Should the freedom to increase council tax be included in the national funding mix? The overwhelming problem here is the absurd overdependence by local government on national. Both for their grants and for the marginal freedom that they are permitted by a Government that has stalled on local tax reform. That cannot go on. We are not willing to allow the national budget process to become an annual rearguard action against local funding cuts. We therefore give notice that we will be unable to enter negotiations on next year's budget unless meaningful progress has been made on local tax reform. We are pushing it now, Mr Harvick, to please finish. That has allowed us to make progress on this budget, but local tax reform can wait no longer. I call Willie Rennie to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. This budget does not deliver the transformational change that we need for our country. We have huge challenges in the next two to three years in the face of Brexit. We have a sluggish economy in Scotland, falling and lagging well behind the rest of the United Kingdom. The budget should have been used as an opportunity to make that transformational investment in education. Because only by investing in the skills and the talents of our people can we revitalise that economy. We have argued for the modest penny on income tax to invest in education. We believe that we should be investing in nursery education. We have already heard that the nursery education roll-out is facing difficulties. We argued for an expansion into two-year-old, something that the Government reluctantly accepted eventually. However, we have now got a big programme of roll-out within the next few years, but there are difficulties with that roll-out. We should be making the necessary investment to recruit the people, to give them the skills and to create the infrastructure that is necessary for the nursery education sector. Yesterday, John Swinney announced the pupil equity fund. In fact, he announced it with great fanfare, but we discovered that the figure had been frozen from last year. There was no increase in the pupil equity fund. We were already lagging well behind its equivalent in England, the pupil premium, as advocated by the Liberal Democrats in Government, which closed the attainment gap by five percentage points. We are already behind and the budget has been frozen this year. We should have been investing in that, too. In college places, just yet again this week, we found out that 140,000 college places have been cut from the sector under the SNP. That has cut training, opportunities and education for women, for mature students and part-time students as well. We should be investing in that sector to make that transformational change for our future. By investing in the skills and the talents of our people, we can grow the economy. We will also grow the economy by investing in the skills and the talents of people through investment in mental health. We have argued that the budget should be raised up to £1.2 billion. That is necessary in order to deal with the real deep-seated problems that we have with CAMHS, with young people in adolescent services and children's services, which are lagging behind. In fact, 3,000 people last autumn were waiting for mental health treatment, and 10,000 young people have had their mental health treatment delayed just within the past three years. That is appalling, and that needs to change, and that is why we believe that investment in those services is required. The kind of things that we believe should happen is investing in mental health professionals, integrating it in with services such as accident emergency units, embedding it in the police and in primary care, and investing in CAMHS as well. We need that mental health investment to make that change, investing in the skills and the talents and the abilities of people to make the change for our future. That is why we argued for that modest penny on income tax. We were open and frank about it at the election. Unlike the Government, which said that there would be no increase in the basic rate of income tax, we were open and frank about it. We said to people that if they made a small sacrifice, they would have a big return, so that people would pay in order to make sure that we had that transformational change for our country. So a specific tax rise for a specific purpose to get a specific benefit. The danger, I am afraid to say, is with the conservative approach of cutting taxes ever more irrespective of the consequences, and the Labour Party has to say increasing taxes ever more irrespective of the consequences and sometimes just with 48 hours' notice. I think that that is not the way to have a mature, open and frank debate about the future of our country. So we needed honesty at the election. We need to have frankness from all the parties about what the opportunity is for our country. We have always been constructive with budget debates. We have always sought to work with the Government where we can. And in previous years, we have voted for the Government. On a couple of occasions, we decided because the budget was not perfect but it was good enough to invest in nursery education, in free school meals but also in colleges. We have had a frank and open discussion with the Government about what the political differences are between our two parties. This year was different. This year, we saw the Government identifying two remote small constituencies with vulnerable lifeline ferry services and reneging on a commitment that they had given over the past six years in order to lever the support of those constituency MSPs. The only reason that the funding for the ferries in Northern Isles is in the budget is because we made the case. We committed the debating time. We secured an amendment in committee. We enabled separate discussions for this to happen. If the Government were left to their own devices, the islands would be left wanting and everyone knows that. That is not the way for a Government to behave, to pick off remote and rural constituencies for their own devices, and we will not play their game. I have a wee bit quiet please, because Mr Kenneth Gibson likes things to be quiet. Kenneth Gibson, followed by Dean Lockhart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Compromise, collaboration and consensus are an integral part of the budget process and what we strive to do here in Parliament. In those challenging times with a tough economic climate and a real-terms cut of over £211 million to our resource budget courtesy of the UK Tory Government for the forthcoming year, producing a balance and fair budget for Scotland that is no mean feat. Nevertheless, the finance secretary has delivered a progressive and responsible budget, determined to ensure that a health service is fully equipped with future. That is why this budget increases funding for front-line NHS boards with a real-terms increase of £208 million. We want Scotland's health service to be among the best in the world and are investing in a new GP contract and mental health services. That budget also supports increased research and development, infrastructure, strengthening the collaboration between the NHS industry, academia and the third sector. After years of pay restraint, thousands of nurses and healthcare staff will benefit from a minimum pay increase of 3 per cent for staff earning up to £36,500, welcomed by the Royal College of Nurses and Unison. As an MSP with 6,300 island constituents, I understand how crucial lifeline ferry services are and was delighted when the Scottish National Party Government invested £12.6 million in a new hybrid environmentally friendly ferry, the MV Katrina, which began service from Lachranza and Arran to Clunig in Argyll, some 16 months ago, and invested £48.5 million in the Glen Sarnyx, which will sail from Ardrossan to Brodych from next year. Having lobbied hard for such investment, I congratulate Liam McArthur and Tawie Scott. Sadly, they are not here in the chamber to hear this praise. On their tenacious lobbying of the finance secretary to secure £5.5 million for Orkney and £5 million for Shetland health resource, their inter-island ferry services, shame about what Willie Rennie's curmudgeonly comments just a few minutes ago. Colleagues will touch on £66 million to support additional investment in social care, £24 million to fully fund the teachers pay offer, £52.2 million in revenue and £150 million in capital to support the expansion in funded early learning and childcare, and the many other positive aspects to the budget. A fortnight ago, I spoke in Labour's daft, no conference debate, and must apologise to the chamber. In pointing out numerous instances of Labour, imposed austerity and neglected to mention the £500 million imposed on Scotland in 2009-10 by the last UK Labour Government, around Chancellor Alliser Darling's future plans revealed on 25 March 2010. Asked on Newsnight how they compared with Mrs Thatcher's attempts to slun the size of the state, Mrs Darling replied, they will be deeper and tougher, adding that if re-elected, he would impose reductions in capital spending of almost 15 per cent a year for the next four years. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said that Labour's plans implied cuts to public services of £46,000 million in real terms over four years. Ft tax rises and vital spending cuts of 25 per cent were in prospect with a squeeze lasting until 2017. It is therefore simply laughable for those same Labour MSPs who, in 2010, fought for the re-electure of Mr Darling and his austerity policies to now pretend to champion anti-austerity. Repentant sinners overcompensating, they have formed. Labour's proposals, like so many I waited patiently for a glimpse of Labour's tax plans after James Kelly said, Labour will take adequate time to put forward its proposals. In fact, we have little time to scrutinise these meager dabblings. For Labour, it was about playing to the gallery, nothing for the economy, transport, justice, environment, etc. Not only is the total revenue that they say they would raise by their proposals a fantasy, many of their suggestions would not raise any revenue this coming year. What does that say to families? The people of Scotland merit genuine engagement and debate, not political posturing and gesture politics. The behavioural impact of Labour tax rises, no mention of it, even though James Kelly sits in the finance committee where it was discussed to be fair his campaign to what I believe turns back the clock in the fight against sectarianism, kicked him busy and understands some of the old songs are already being sung again. But the Tories make Labour's proposals seem rational and coherent. On capital the equate loans, we grant, and I wonder how many Tory MSPs would like their own salaries in the form of a loan. There are pitiful efforts to confoke that 556 million tax cuts can be delivered along with £211 million real-terms resource cut to Scotland's block grant and a bewildering array of Tory spending demands 70 in the last count beggars belief. Ruth Davidson will be querying all the lefties who have infiltrated a group. Among many are Brian The Bolshevik Whittle, who is called at least 11 times for an increase in spending on issues ranging from the Port of Cairnryan, cutting across his colleague Finlay Carson to sport and local government. Meanwhile, Red Rachel Hamilton demands more investment in roads in the Borders railway, which her Tory predecessor criticised. Maurice Corry wants to double her housing programme for 50,000-100,000 affordable homes, but he is yet to tell us how it will be funded and delivered, given Westminster's financial street jacket or the UK's Brexit policy, which will increase skill shortages in the construction trades. Aram Tomkins was once a real Marxist, of course, addressing a rally on Carlin Hill in 2004 calling for the establishment of a Scottish Socialist Republic. The impetuosity of youth, he was only 35 at the time. These days, Mr Tomkins no longer wants to storm the Winter Palace. He is just asking for a few bob to upgrade the SCCC. Tories do not really care about Scotland simply following the shambolic lead of Mrs May in London. A couple of years ago, during negotiations on the fiscal framework, they urged, as they did labour for a time, the Scottish National Party Government to accept a cut of up to £7,000 million over 10 years to this Parliament's budget and were foiled only by the determination of the Deputy First Minister back by the First Minister not to give ground. Throughout this year's budget process, the Tories failed to engage the people to see through them. The Greens have engaged and can claim credit for helping to deliver a more progressive budget for the people and communities of Scotland. A vote for this budget is a vote for high-quality public services, strong support for business, measures to tackle poverty and inequality, and a vote for a fairer Scotland, urged colleagues to support it. I call Dean Lockhart to be followed by Elaine Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Scotland's economy is facing what the Fraser van der has described as the longest period of weak growth in 60 years. That is reflected in recent figures. Scotland's economy is growing by only 0.5 per cent, less than a third of the rest of the UK. Trade figures show a 5 per cent decline in total trade from Scotland, and data has confirmed that business investment in Scotland declined by 15 per cent last year. The outlook for the economy is equally challenging. The Scottish Fiscal Commission, which I noted as Derek Mackay did not mention once in his opening statement, is forecasting average growth of 0.6 per cent in the next four years. Let me put that into context. Under the Scottish National Party, Scotland will experience the lowest growth of any economy in the developed world. Those growth forecasts are of real concern, but even more alarming is the conclusion of the Fiscal Commission that the Scottish economy is currently running at or above capacity, meaning that the growth capacity of Scotland's economy has declined from a long-term average of 2.2 per cent to half a per cent today. In other words, economic growth of 0.5 per cent is as good as we can expect under the Scottish National Party Government. I will give way to the member if he will help me to understand why the long-term growth potential of Scotland's economy has fallen in the past 10 years. Ivan McKee Absolutely. The member will be aware that the Scottish Fiscal Commission said that the main reason for Scotland being at capacity and unable to grow any faster was due to population issues, and the biggest issue there is the lack of skilled labour. It is going to be exacerbated by Brexit, and that is what they have taken into their forecasts, as the member well knows. Dean Lockhart I think that Mr McKee will find that lower productivity in Scotland than elsewhere is the key driver of the SNP's forecast. He will also find that there is a direct correlation of population growth and migration and the strength of an economy. The stronger your economy is, the more skilled workers you get into that economy. However, the fundamental problem that this budget should be addressing is that after a decade in power, the SNP economy has become a low growth, low wage, low enterprise and low productivity economy. Presiding Officer, this economic stagnation is not inevitable, nor is it something we should accept. With world-class universities, international cities and a skilled workforce, Scotland has real potential to perform at much higher levels. To realise that potential, the absolute priority of this budget must be to increase the productive capacity of the economy, and the Scottish Government, despite denying it, has all the powers necessary to make this happen. It has full control over skills enterprise and economic development policy, which has an annual budget of more than £2.5 billion, as well as significant new tax powers. Yes, I will. Derek Mackay Is the Scotland office then not been entirely accurate when they say that the UK Government has control over macroeconomic policy for the whole of the UK? Dean Lockhart I think that Mr Mackay will find that the UK Government has control over monetary policy and interest rates, which are at record lowest. The SNP has control over enterprise policy and economic growth, which is also at record lowest. Instead of using the substantial powers to grow the economy, increase productivity and promote business growth, the SNP has decided to double down on its failed economic agenda and to make Scotland the highest tax part of the UK for skilled workers, the highest tax part of the UK to expand business, and the highest tax part of the UK for business rates. For skilled workers in Scotland, this budget means a reduction in their net salary. A lower take on pay than colleagues elsewhere in the UK. I need to make progress. To increase productivity, it is vital that we keep existing skilled workers and attract more. However, we are already seeing evidence that this higher tax is adversely impacting the decisions of business and skilled workers to expand and locate in Scotland. Productivity has declined in every one of the last seven quarters in Scotland. I need to make progress. The budget imposing higher taxes on skilled workers is not surprising that the SFC is forecasting the trend of lower productivity to continue. For business in Scotland, the budget will mean 20,000 businesses paying £70 million more in rates than elsewhere in the UK because of the large business supplement. The budget also means that business will pay an extra £85 million as a result of an increase in the poundage rate. Scotland already has the lowest business creation and survival rates in the UK, but hammering business with an extra £150 million of rate payments will only serve to further damage the economy. The most effective way to increase Government tax revenues and public spending is to grow the economy. The negative impact of low economic growth on public spending was highlighted by the fiscal commission in December when it reduced the projected level of tax receipts in Scotland over the next four years by £2 billion as a result of lower than expected economic growth. That is £2 billion less for the Scottish Government to spend on vital public services as a result of the weakness in the economy. That £2 billion reduction is a multiple of what Derek Mackay will raise in revenues by increasing tax on the hardworking people of Scotland. Instead of increasing tax, the SNP should listen to leading organisations across Scotland who are calling for a reversal of the decision to make Scotland the highest tax part of the UK, a new direction in economic policy and urgent action now to address the longest period of weak growth in Scotland for 60 years. I support the amendment in Murdo Fraser's name. I call Elaine Smith to be followed by Emma Harper. Thank you very much. Presiding Officer, and I let the chamber know that my member of Unite the Union. Presiding Officer, this budget is being closely watched right across Scotland. It is being watched by councillors who have to deal with the fallout of the on-going cuts to the budgets. It is being watched by public sector staff who have not had a decent pay rise for years. And it is being watched by the people of Scotland who depend on our public services and they are suffering from the cuts to those services. And all of them know that things could be very different if this SNP Government would stop being so timid and use the powers of this Parliament for a fairer Scotland. Presiding Officer, like me, many of those people campaigned and voted for a Scottish Parliament, but they did not expect that 20 years later its Government would simply pass on Tory austerity. There is the opportunity to do things differently, to be radical instead of tinkering about the edges and to begin to reverse the damage of years of cuts in our communities. And that is what Labour would do in Government and it is what we are demanding that the SNP do. Our budget plan laid out clearly and concisely by James Kelly is based on in the moment, cabinet secretary, is based on progressive taxation. As socialists, we believe in the redistribution of power and wealth to eradicate the obscene reality of poverty in a rich country. And I will take the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary. I thank Elaine Smith for taking the intervention. The Government's outlined the pay policy of a 3 per cent uplift of £36,500. What is the pay threshold and percentage increase from the Labour Party? Perhaps the cabinet secretary Elaine Smith Thank you, Presiding Officer. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could answer what the pay policy is for local government as I put to him on the local government committee because that has not been funded but expectations have been raised. Presiding Officer, it is long past time that the SNP took radical action to eradicate poverty and the inequality that underpins it. And I note that there was no answer from the cabinet secretary earlier on on child poverty, but the Government's own report on poverty and income inequality states that after housing costs 26 per cent of children in Scotland were living in relative poverty in 2015-16. That is nearly 260,000 children and that is 40,000 more than the previous year. And that appalling rise is happening under this SNP Government. And shockingly, forecasts also show that up to 100,000 more children will be pushed into poverty in Scotland by 2020. And of course, I recognise that we now have a child poverty bill providing a framework and setting targets along with some policy steps in the right direction. However, Scottish Labour is clear that this year's budget must tackle the shameful growth of child poverty because children can't wait any longer and the Scottish Government plans simply do not go far enough. Presiding Officer, since by definition a child is living in poverty if their household income is insufficient to meet the child's basic material needs, the Scottish Government should understand that the most immediate and effective way of lifting children out of poverty is to directly raise family income levels. For those parents on the lower end of the income scale, child benefit is vital for providing their children with adequate clothing and nutrition, sporting activities and school trips. But with one in four children in Scotland living in material deprivation we know that far too many children are going without, which of course has a severe impact on their wellbeing and their future life chances. Under the Tories, child benefit payments have risen just 2 per cent since 2010-11 and they have not changed at all since 2015. I'm afraid I don't have time. Coupled with the increased cost of raising a child, this is part of the reason that ever-increasing numbers of households with children are being pushed into poverty. That is why a coalition of charities, faith groups and trade unions back the Give Me Five campaign urging the Government to top up child benefit payments by £5 per week. To support that, Scottish Labour's Mark Griffin has lodged amendments to the social security bill backing the top-up of child benefits because research shows that in doing so we would lift 30,000 children out of poverty. It could fund a nutritious breakfast every day, a good quality winter quote, or taking part in school trips and that could stop children being hungry, cold or left out of school activities. Undoubtedly, topping up child benefit is an extremely effective way to reduce material deprivation for all households that are struggling. But I note in particular that 70 per cent of children in Scotland who live in poverty live in working families. Low wages, precarious employment and zero air contracts means that work doesn't always provide a route out of poverty. And months where wages are lower than expected, parents are often forced to use food banks or rely upon vicious payday loans. Since child benefit is a universal benefit, a £5 top-up would provide a stable and reliable source of additional income for families, benefiting those who are in work as well as those who are not. If the Scottish Government was to use its taxation powers progressively in line with Labour's budget plans, the cost of topping up child benefit could be met. The eradication of child poverty, Presiding Officer, should be an absolute priority for this Government, but it won't be tackled with an inadequate, lightweight and frankly feeble budget. After 10 years in office, isn't it time that the SNP fully used the powers of this Parliament to the full extent to redistribute wealth and power, to eradicate poverty and create a fairer Scotland for the many? That's what Scottish Labour would do. Thank you very much. I call Emma Harper to be followed by Miles Briggs. Ms Harper, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a budget for a stronger economy in a fairer society with increased funding for the NHS and the protection for low and middle income earners. As I've mentioned the NHS, I need to refer members to my register of interests and remind chamber that I am a registered nurse and soon to be a volunteer at the new DGRI. The foundations of this budget, investing in our NHS, stopping Tory cuts, protecting public services and growing our economy have been welcomed by the majority of organisations that gave evidence to the committee. There is a strong consensus across Scottish society that backing this budget is necessary to keep driving Scotland forward and that politicians from all parties should get behind those progressive plans. Actions of the Scottish Government set out in this budget make Scotland the fairest tax part of the UK. Next year, those earning under £33,000 will pay less. That includes thousands of nurses and healthcare workers. Dean Lockhart has just said that this Government is raising taxes on skilled workers. Does that mean that he is suggesting that nurses who will actually be paying less tax are not skilled? So I would challenge him on that. In my questioning of witnesses as a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee, I have—yes, I'll take an intervention. Dean Lockhart. Absolutely. I am just repeating the Government's own figures that show that the tax cuts will not apply to anyone below £26,000 and the tax cuts will impact over 900,000 workers in Scotland. Absolutely. Nurses are skilled workers, but I am just repeating what the Government's own figures show that 900,000 hard workers in Scotland will be impacted by higher tax. Excuse me, Ms Harper is going to deal with it. Thank you, Mr Arthur. Emma Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I've got big boots, so I can challenge this. The nurses who are making under 33,000 will be paying less tax, and again I will reinforce that these are skilled workers. In my question of the witnesses as a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee, I focus on how the structural changes proposed in the budget will benefit women. For example, in the past three— in the first three tax bans, many employees are women. 89 per cent of skilled nurses are women. There's a high percentage of healthcare support workers that are women, and most people in caring community are women. So the budget directly reflects the Scottish Government's equalities agenda in respect of both revenues and expenditure. In making sure that he has aligned pay policy and tax policy as well as overall expenditure plans, it is easier that equality has been at the forefront of the finance secretary's mind. Those actions have just taken one, actually. Those actions that have taken against the backdrop of tough economic and public expenditure conditions, Scotland's block grant for day-to-day expenditure is decreasing. A decade of Westminster austerity has left families across Scotland worse off and put enormous pressure on the Scottish budget. Throughout this process, the finance secretary has attempted to engage with opposition parties about their plans. He wrote to them formally some months ago, asking for confirmation of their proposals for income tax policy in order for them to be included in a discussion paper as announced in the programme for government. Despite that, Labour neglected to publish a tax plan until 48 hours before the vote on the budget bill. Last week, they used their parliamentary debating time to bring forward what they claimed was no confidence vote in the budget. And calling a debate on the budget and then admitting that you do not even have a policy and income tax goes beyond incompetence. And the Tory's plan would reduce it would be more than a 500 million pound whole in our public service and they will be shortchanged despite demanding 500 million pounds of tax giveaway for high earners and big business. And while the UK Government continues to hammer Scotland hammer Scotland with cut after cut after cut, they have made over 100 demands for increased public spending. It's time for the Tories to tell us what they would cut the funding to if they want to hand out 500 million pounds to high earners and what those plans would mean for our NHS and our schools. The true consequences of what they are suggesting are unimaginable. It is difficult for me to envisage just how our NHS would function and the number of nurses whose livelihoods would be under threat. It would simply be devastating for the service in all areas from A and E through to our mental health services. Fortunately, MSPs have the opportunity to vote for fair and progressive tax plans today as well as a growth package including real terms increase in funding for colleges and universities. Investment towards the expansion of early learning and childcare and the establishment of Scotland's first national investment bank and voting against the budget will be a vote against those progressive measures. Presiding Officer, it will be a vote against investing in children, our schools, hospitals and other vital public services and giving them the funds that they need. Presiding Officer, I urge politicians from all parties in this chamber to get behind those progressive plans and vote for the budget today. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Raffer. I call Miles Briggs. We follow by Ivan McKee. Mr Briggs, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to take part in today's budget debate and will focus my remarks today on the NHS and social care and the settlement of local authorities in my own region. Since 2010, the UK Conservative Government's protection of the NHS budget has indeed seen investment in our NHS and that has now accounted to all over £2.154 billion in extra money for our NHS here in Scotland since 2011. Although all of us will accept that health inflation is a real driver of pressure and overall health budgets, as are the demographic challenges that are facing our population across the UK, it is also legitimate for us to scrutinise how the Scottish National Party Government's spending of taxpayers' money and we should remember that the taxpayers' money on our health services has been undertaken. Sadly, it is all too easy to find examples of where this Government is having to use vital resources to fill the gaps left by its own poor decision making in health. It is a real indictment of the Scottish National Party Government's failure to build capacity in our social care sector that delayed discharge has cost the NHS £132 million last year. SNP ministers' failures to put in place long-term NHS workforce plans means that private agency staffing costs now have rocketed across Scotland. In 2017, NHS boards spent £171 million on agency staff. That was a real terms increase of 79 per cent in a space of just five years. Meanwhile, spending on locum staff has almost reached over a quarter of a billion pounds in 2016-17, and some health boards have now almost doubled their locum spend in the space of a year. While I am on the subject of NHS retention and NHS staff recruitment, I have to say that I was disappointed but perhaps not surprised that in a response to health secretary confirmed to me earlier this week, this SNP Government has undertaken absolutely no assessment of how higher taxes in Scotland will impact on the recruitment and retention of NHS staff. That is despite public warnings from a BMA and others that SNP tax hike proposals for middle and higher earners will make it more difficult to recruit GPs, consultants and other highly skilled NHS professionals in Scotland. That is another example, I believe, of this Government's lack of joined up thinking and inability to see the bigger picture. Moving to local authority funding, until a matter of just a couple of hours ago, this SNP Government wanted Edinburgh City Council to see a cut of £3 million. That was a political choice being taken by this SNP Government. Very briefly. Kate Forbes Fawld for additional spend in healthcare now in local government, yet he supports tax plans that would see over £500 million cut from public services. Where should those cuts land? Mr Briggs. One of the parts of this which I think this debate, which a number of speakers have already said is that we need to grow our economy in Scotland. Under the SNP and members of the backbenchers need to listen to this, under the SNP and your Scotland is on course for the slowest growth across the developed world, are you proud of that as a Government? I don't think so. I never thought I would say bring back Alex Salmond to this Parliament but he at least had an idea of growing our economy. Presiding Officer, did SNP ministers really believe that cutting Edinburgh City Council's budget yet again was going to help councils address, I've not got time, social care crisis in Edinburgh? The fact stand, Presiding Officer. The fact stand, Presiding Officer. The finance secretary and this SNP Government have received real-term increases in the block grant and in Barnett consequentials from the UK Government. It is their decision to raise income taxes for so many hard-working families in this budget. There is a political calculation that SNP ministers need to be held account for. That is where I believe the finance secretary has actually lost his way. Growing the Scottish economy is not an added extra to a budget. It's central to everything he and the Scottish Government should be about and be doing. And we need to go to, if we are going to do that, to continue to provide the services we rely on. Deputy Presiding Officer, we were told by many in the media that this SNP budget is an attempt by Nicola Sturgeon in this Government to demonstrate their left-wing high-tax credentials in a desperate bid to outflank Richard Leonard and Jeremy Corbyn. As we have heard from red Ken Gibson today, is that really where the finance secretary and the SNP find themselves today trying to be a cheap version of Jeremy Corbyn? If that is where the SNP want to go and find themselves well, good luck. It is little wonder that the SNP lost almost a third of their seats and almost half a million votes at the recent Westminster election. After 11 years of SNP mismanagement of our public services and a Scottish economy going nowhere under Nicola Sturgeon, we need to be looking to the future and how we as a country can grow our economy and deliver the sustainable public services which we all should want to see. Last week, last week I said that the closure of independence is always the answer, for you lot. Last week, last week I said that the closure of the children's ward at the Royal Alexander hospital in Paisley would go down as Nicola Sturgeon's Nicleg moment. Today, I think, will go down as Derek Mackay turning into the artful dodger from Oliver and he certainly has picked a pocket of two today. The people I represent across Edinburgh and the Lothians are once again being badly let down by this SNP Government. They are going to be hit hard by SNP income taxes as we become the highest tax part of our United Kingdom and then they will have the pleasure of paying more under this SNP Government and receiving less. I support the motion in my colleague Murdo Fraser's name. Thank you, Mr Briggs. I call Ivan McKee to be followed by Ian Gray. Mr McKee, please. Thank you. Presiding Officer, today's debate is about the Scottish Government's budget for next year but it also demonstrates in stark terms why this Scottish Government is the only credible option to run this country's finances. The people who are elected is expected to do a professional job to evaluate the evidence before us to make decisions as to how best to proceed taking into account the likely results of our actions. They do not expect us to ignore reality and just mouth sound bites and they trust us to make sure the numbers add up. In other words, they expect us to behave like adults and this is nowhere more important than it comes to the pound in their pocket. In scrutinising this budget, members of the Finance and Constitution Committee sat through evidence sessions from the Scottish Fiscal Commission. The body set up to provide independent analysis and forecast data for the budget process. We heard about the work that the commission does to evaluate the tax plans of government to make sure that evidence-based and do not defy the laws of mathematics. We heard about the importance of correctly estimating the value of tax elasticity of income or tie and calculating how much revenue any changes to the tax system will generate taking into account what actually happens in the real world. I sat with Mr Kelly, Mr Bibby and others while the SFC explained in great detail the caring attention they had given to doing a professional job given the government their robust data needs to bring forward a budget that will deliver what it says on the tin. Indeed, the impact tax income elasticities have on revenues are covered in some detail in our committee's unanimous report. To ignore their work to pretend that the world is somehow different from the reality before us to pretend that 2 plus 2 somehow doesn't equal 4 is not only an insult to the people of Scotland who expect better from their politicians it trashes the credibility of those who make those claims and even judge by its own terms it takes us nowhere because as Labour front bench full well knows and the Scottish Government where by some strange one minute where by some strange act to adopt Labour's tax plans the amount of money the Scottish Fiscal Commission would allow the government to spend on its budget would be hundreds of millions of pounds short of the fantasy data Labour has in its back of the envelope analysis I'll give way. James Kelly Just in terms of tax policy and evidence do you think it's fair even with the correction that Mr Mackay announced today that somebody on 45,000 will have the same level of increase as somebody on 150,000? Do you think that's a fair tax policy? Ivan McKee The problem that Mr Kelly's got is every time he opens his mouth people will understand that he has no credibility in any of the numbers that come out of it no idea what he's talking about unevenly add the numbers up just makes up stuff and Mr Kelly quoted Spice when he talked earlier well let me tell you what Spice actually said our estimates of the income tax revenues raised under different scenarios are static estimates they do not take account of any behavioural responses that might as well from the policy changes outlined we make this very clear in all our costings and all of our published work on the topic and Spice goes on to say that any analysis done without taking into account the SFC's behavioural assessments would not be accurate from a modelling perspective and this is not the only area where Labour's tax plans are holed below the water line and on non-domestic rates pool the source of another magic £174 million in Labour's alternative reality budget Mr Kelly knows fine well at least he should that Audit Scotland has stated the pool must be brought back and balanced by the end of 2018-19 and that is what this budget does look if we Ian Gray not the case at all Audit Scotland has said this is fairly a matter for this Government Mr Gray sorry bear with me could you start again your microphone wasn't on to start with thank you the member must know that Audit Scotland have said no such thing they've said that the Scottish Government have said that's what they will do and that's entirely a matter for them Ivan McKee they've said this way but would you say that you're not going to do that are you going to continually take money out of that pool that doesn't exist that's another example of Labour's lack of credibility on their budget and process so now clear why Labour left their publication of their tax plans to the last minute to try and avoid any scrutiny of their proposals where that gamble has failed the credibility of their analysis in tatters and Labour's seeing this unfit to do any more than carp from third place tax proposals more worthy of scheming laws such than a supposedly serious political party and on the other side of the chamber a different kind of reality denial I've got a list presiding officer it's not a short list features rather a long list all eight pages of it and it's not a list I wrote it's a list that others have written for us it's a list of spending demands made by Tory members in this Parliament while in 70 different demands adding up to hundreds of millions of pounds it goes from air quality monitors through to zebra crossings the full A to Z of Tory spending demands but nowhere but nowhere are there any plans on how to raise the cash that is because as everyone can see when it comes down to it so I've already taken two thank you because it comes down to it Tory tax and spend just does not add up presiding officer this budget delivers for the people of Scotland it reduces taxes for more than 70 per cent of earners it means the majority pay less tax in Scotland than they would have lived in the rest of the UK it makes Scotland the lowest and the fairest tax part of the UK it does so well meet manifesto commitments to invest funds over and above inflation in our key public services it provides the resources that enable the Scottish Government to deliver quality public services including the best health service in the UK presiding officer this is a budget that exists in the real world to a real people make real decisions to deliver real revenue and real services it isn't a game of fantasy economics for the books that have to balance our individuals are assumed to behave as we want them to not as they actually do on planet earth Laboratories are competing for the gold medal in economic and competence olympics one failing to explain who their shop list would be paid for the other ignoring the laws of mathematics clowns to the left of us jokers to the right of us meanwhile the Scottish Government gets on with the grown-up work of putting together a budget that delivers to the people of Scotland thank you I call Iain Gray to be followed by Ben Macpherson Mr Gray please thank you presiding officer what an opportunity the budget should be for the government to set a new direction for our country in the year to come a government with real vision the courage of their convictions and a willingness to win the argument for real change could choose to end a miserable narrative of austerity and really begin again to invest in our public services and the people who work in them and choose to kick start our pitiful levels of economic growth more so too this year than ever before because of the new powers over taxation we have which allow us new choices to raise more to invest and indeed to redistribute across income levels too an ending austerity progressive taxation reducing poverty these are all principles this government loves to espouse but they are never prepared to put them into action so this year they brought forward a draft budget for passing on cuts yet again local government alone clear that it needed more than 500 million pounds just to stand still were to get 150 million pounds less and the government brought forward a tax plan which yet again bottled out of the 50p tax rate for top earners which the SNP famously and regularly support every five years when an election comes round Kate Forbes if the member was so keen to constructively change the budget why did he wait for till 48 hours before the stage one debate to bring forward those budget proposals Ian Gray because this is the stage one where the budget is brought forward and we then have two further stages where we consider it in detail that's the parliamentary process but the truth is this is hardly the first time we've raised the issue of the 50p tax rate is it we have repeatedly asked the SNP to support a 50p tax rate and they have repeatedly refused except when elections come round indeed the SNP on the 50p tax rate truly is that very definition of all mouth and no trousers no I'm sorry I just took one even better this was a tax plan which turned out to be a tax increase for someone earning 40,000 pounds but a tax cut for someone earning 50,000 pounds which turned out to raise only around 164 million pounds and then hand most of that back to businesses leaving local service budgets woefully short again what a timid effort circumvented by lack of ambition and fear of upsetting high earners simply managing the very austerity the government rails against on any other day of the year but of course the government always knew they would get away with this because with a tweak here and there they would have the greens in the bag and so it proves I heard Patrick Harvie on GMS this morning and he said he's had enough of a budget process which is just about deciding where the cuts will fall me too but he then went straight from the studio to meet Derek Mackay and agree exactly where the cuts would fall I know he claims he's trying to mitigate austerity but he must see that he's colluding in the cuts I acknowledge that Mr Gray thinks that this should go further but can he not at least admit that the 157 million cut to local government has been more than reverse as a result of the work that we've done and compare that to the work that his own party has achieved which is nothing Ian Gray No, I don't accept that and I'll give you two reasons why firstly the letter from Mr Mackay to Mr Harvie reveals that in 2018-19 the uplift is £125 million already £50 million less than he was claiming only minutes ago and let me give you an example of how dishonest I think all this is the government draft budget estimates income from non-domestic rates at £2.8 billion but it only plans to distribute £2.6 billion to councils that's £142 million of councils own money held back from them this is the extra money that Derek Mackay and Patrick Harvie have been dealing with with over these weeks it was local councils money all along just like last year when £300 million was skimmed out and at £150 million of it put back in and Mr Harvie wanted congratulated for that in the real world this deal leaves local services facing cuts more reductions to teaching and support staff higher charges for social care local energy efficiency projects Mr Harvie put at risk threatening further increases in fuel poverty in the real world 260,000 children live in poverty and get no help at all from this budget in the real world it is still the rich who benefit most from the government's timidity on tax the Greens who proposed a 60p top rate will vote through a budget that asks those in the highest incomes to contribute only a penny more in the pound what a sell out we could have a budget which does stop austerity cuts invest £1 billion more in public services starts to invest in schools and hospitals again at last a budget which ensures that all public sector workers can have a real terms fully funded pay increase after years of pay erosion which lifts thousands of children and their families out of poverty by boosting child benefit and which asks the highest paid in society to pay a fair share that would be a budget a vision of conviction a budget worth supporting thank you I call Ben Macpherson do we follow by Liz Smith Mr Macpherson please thank you Presiding Officer last week I visited two primary schools in my constituency and as I was there meeting with teachers and chatting to some of the children I thought about how young people of primary school age across Scotland have grown up in a context of on-going Westminster austerity that is a sobering fact and something for all of us to reflect on particularly those who believe in the UK state since 2007 when Labour started slashing Scotland's budget there has been a significant reduction in the finances available to this parliament including a staggering 2.6 billion Tory cut to Scotland's discretionary budget between 2010-11 and 2019-20 to put that in context that's the equivalent of the entire education budget However, Presiding Officer despite this Westminster austerity despite this backdrop of tough economic and public expenditure conditions under SNP leadership Scotland has moved forward with growing confidence Devolution has protected vital public services our nation's economy has progressed significantly in a whole range of areas with higher productivity growth than anywhere any other part of the UK and yes I will Dean Lockhart I mentioned the economy developing based on SFC forecasts the Scottish economy under the SNP will grow at the slowest rate of any developed economy over the next four years is that a record he's proud of? Thank you Dean Lockhart for the intervention it gives me an opportunity to point out of course the use this week that the UK will be worse off under any possible scenario under a Tory Brexit and also it allows me to highlight the fact that Brexit threatens to cost the Scottish economy around £11 billion a year by 2030 and I think Dean Lockhart would be better to support the fact that the Scottish economy has had higher productivity growth than any other part of the UK no certainly not more interventions from Mr Lockhart However, and I think as well so given all these the positive outlook of the economy and despite the negativity of Brexit people in Scotland have many reasons to be hopeful and for me today's budget is about how all of us as Scottish politicians do our part to help making a real and positive difference for current and future generations because since 2007 the SNP has protected health delivered increased healthcare spending and more support for schools and delivered many many more affordable homes and this budget is about building on that strong record Hold on No So, Presiding Officer I want to get on to important points I've got limited time Last year Edinburgh was voted the second best city in the world for quality of life Scotland as a whole has been ranked as the best place to live in the UK for quality of life and talented people despite the negativity from the Tories are and well motivated people are moving here more and more and more and one of the overarching reasons for this is because in Scotland we value the balance between social progress and economic development we understand that strong public services and a vibrant economy go hand in hand together and that is why businesses understand that a healthy social environment is vital for growing the economy so I will support today's budget because in terms of public services it will deliver a whole variety of things to make our country the fairest tax part in the UK and the best deal for taxpayers alleviating Tory Westminster cuts where possible and investing in a whole range of new initiatives and investments that I can't list all of them but for me particularly important proposals include an extra £400 million of spending for the NHS and a £120 million for PEF funding lifting the public sector pay cap protecting the police budget in real terms investing £756 million towards building more affordable homes £50,000 by 2021 and the expansion of free childcare and as I said earlier though Presiding Officer it's important to remember that the Scottish Government's proposals will assist the economy as well and individuals so the proposed tax changes will mean that overall 70 per cent of taxpayers in Scotland will pay less and 55 per cent of people will pay less than they would in England that's fair and progressive and there is strong public support for that as a recent UGov poll has shown Moreover, there will be proposals for the economy a 70 per cent increase in investment for research and development for example and £340 million to provide capitalisation for the Scottish National Investment Bank and an additional £6.6 million for creative Scotland and the creative industries and a significant investment in low carbon infrastructure thanks to the green's constructive input and childcare investment Now, in my time remaining Presiding Officer, I don't have time to go into the amateur's proposals from Labour and the bereft of serious detail on any robust analysis However, I would like to comment on the Tories plans for this budget because unlike Labour the Tories have at least been honest about their proposals to slash £500 million being available to Scottish revenue Every time the Tories ask for more spending on health people will remember that Ruth Davidson, Miles Briggs and their colleagues wanted a cut of £500 million from being available to spend on our hospitals They wanted a cut of £500 million from being available to spend on supporting working families They wanted a cut of £500 million being available for supporting building new homes They wanted a cut of £500 million being available to spend on keeping communities safe and they wanted a cut of £500 million from being available to help our young people Presiding Officer, there's so much more I could say but I'll conclude by saying this The Scottish Government's budget proposals today will be about voting to build a fairer and more progressive country There's strong consensus across Scottish society for backing this budget to keep Scotland moving forward and as representatives of our constituents we should all get behind these progressive and forward thinking proposals Thank you I call Liz Smith to be followed by Ash Denham Ash Denham will be the last speaker in the open debate Ms Smith, please Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer and may I restrict my remarks this afternoon to the Barclay review proposal specifically about some of the likely consequences of policies that have been set out by the Government in light of the budget process but before I do that can I put on record again that for the majority of these recommendations the Scottish Conservatives are generally very supportive for example the business growth accelerator which will delay the rates increase for businesses that are currently expanding their properties the 100 per cent relief for day nurseries and the 60 per cent relief on hydro schemes all of that is very good news but there are other areas where we believe that the Scottish Government has not fought through its approach and certainly not the consequences of its actions The first concern relates to the large business supplement that's an additional tax levied on businesses with a raiseable value over £51,000 and it will be set at 2.6 in Scotland whereas in England it's set at 1.3 per cent The SNP's own review into business rates recommended strapping the policy to double the large business supplement so it was very little surprise when Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that this decision puts many Scottish businesses at a competitive disadvantage with those south of the border and despite the name of course that will affect many medium-sized businesses across Scotland and she pointed out that that means a very unwelcome addition to their fixed costs at the very time when the Scottish economy is underperforming the UK and looking increasingly shaking on an international perspective Indeed the absence of the level playing field in this respect could be a distinct disadvantage just as I think the Cabinet Secretary for Finance acknowledged rather late in the day perhaps would have been the case had he pressed ahead with his tax on allios something that would have been deeply damaging to many local communities across Scotland which are doing their level best to ensure that people take advantage of facilities such as leisure centres and swimming pools The cabinet secretary knows that it would have been the height of folly to press ahead I'm very much at odds with SNP Yes of course Cabinet Secretary Can I thank Liz Smith for taking the intervention and pose the question? It appears to be the case that the Conservatives quite like the elements where we spend money but they don't like elements or give further relief but they don't like it when we raise money How do the Conservatives propose to resolve that difficulty of raising less and spending more? Liz Smith, Mr Mackay, if you listened to what the reaction was when your proposals about the allios were first suggested I think that you know the answer to that question Can I put on record at this stage 2 that in relation to the policies that are about helping the physical and mental wellbeing of this country at one stage the Scottish Sports Association was facing a cut of £70,000 to its funding and I want to put on record in this Parliament today the thanks to the Minister, Aileen Campbell for listening to the majority opinion in this Parliament to reverse that cut because that would have been severely at odds with SNP policy Presiding Officer there is another issue and before I speak about this can I put on record that as a register of interest that I'm a Governor of St Mary's School in Melrose because I want to talk about the approach of the Scottish Government towards the independent school sector not about the principle of the policy itself because that's a debate for another day but about some of the anomalies and inconsistencies within the approach as it affects the nursery provision and special needs provision which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said are very much priority I may say I'm a bit surprised that he hasn't picked up on some of these anomalies because I know that he has had extensive briefings provided to him by the independent school sector Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary Can the Scottish Government justify the illogicality of allowing private profit making nurseries to enjoy 100 per cent tax relief when the nurseries within independent schools providing exactly the same service but not entirely for a profit making basis for obvious reasons they are charities and they are also assisting the local authorities with the provision of some additional places when they cannot meet themselves why would they not be permitted exactly the same tax break because we know from today's newspapers exactly the pressure that is felt by the private profit making nursery sector in Scotland when it claims that there is no level playing field it's exactly the same argument for the independent sector and likewise can I ask how the Scottish Government intends to separate out mainstream schools catering for special needs and independent special schools given that all independent schools have exactly the same legal status How will the Scottish Government define special needs when the very few people who are receiving additional support are for physical impairments the substantial majority of people who are receiving that special help for a range of behavioural, emotional, social needs none of which are recognised as disabilities under their qualities act in these accompanying legislation The Scottish Government says that Yes, of course I accept Liz Smith as strong views on this matter and I've also set out policy intent and given evidence at committee there is some time to go before those recommendations are implemented and we're not going as far as Barclay recommends but we will take the time to get it right and engage with the sector to achieve the outcomes that Liz Smith has suggested so we're not rushing on those statutory instruments to ensure that we can make that distinction in terms of race legislation Liz Smith Cabinet Secretary, I hope that that is correct because you listened very carefully when there was the fuss about the proposal to punish allios I hope that the same will be true in this instance because I think that the proposals that they stand just now have not been thought through they haven't got the logical deduction behind them and I think that's something that the Scottish Government really has to address May I finish, Deputy Presiding Officer, my remarks on the other issue because there is another anomaly here and that is the fact that state schools are unable at present to take advantage of an equivalent financial benefit to other educational institutions which enjoy charitable relief if the Scottish Government deems education to be a public good then it is true for state schools too the Scottish Government has stated many times in the past that the core functions of universities for example including education and research and development are worthy of charitable relief to reflect their key role in supporting economic growth through education of the workforce and supporting innovation so why is that principle not also applied to independent schools and the equivalent benefit to state schools again I don't see where the logic happens to be Deputy Presiding Officer can I just finish my remarks on the point that I think part of this budget is about some of the difficult thinking that the cabinet secretary has been faced with but more importantly there are illogical steps in what he is proposing he needs to sort that out because if he doesn't it undermines the credibility of what the SNP are trying to do with our financial provisions and it certainly undermines various aspects of our educational system thank you I call Ash Denham then we move to closing speeches Ms Denham please thank you Presiding Officer now around this time last year the Tory benches were in a complete frenzy at the prospect of Scotland using its income tax powers to raise more money for our vital public services such action would ensure nothing short of a calamity according to the Tories indeed murder Fraser had the audacity to claim that if such a budget passed Scotland may as well put up a sign saying that the country was closed for business but it's sad to witness the second largest party in this Parliament lacks so much faith in the country I will Maurice Golden I think the member does the member think that the marginal propensity to consume will go up or down among those individuals hit with higher taxation Ash Denham I think it's evident that the majority of people who will be experiencing a tax cut at the lower end of the income scale which we know are more likely to spend their disposable income and if this budget has been set against the backdrop of tough public expenditure conditions but it's a budget that makes Scotland the fairest taxed part of the UK with the best deal for taxpayers it invests in our NHS it protects our public services and it supports our economy now budgets as we know are about priorities and they're about policy choices and the jury has returned on the Tory's priorities another month another report condemning conservative policy the latest according to the IFS is that 400,000 children will be forced into absolute poverty in the next six years due to Tory benefit cuts 400,000 that is roughly the population of Edinburgh conservative policies will create city-sized failure poverty and suffering for children that is the reality of conservative policies but once again the Scottish Tories come to this chamber to criticise a budget that exercises Scotland's tax powers in order to build a better country a fairer country and a more prosperous country last year the SNP Government met its target to reduce youth unemployment by 40 per cent four years early it's now among the lowest rates in the EU the government's small business bonus scheme has exempted 100,000 properties from rates business research and development spending grew by over one billion pounds for the first time last year and the number of registered businesses is at a record high despite the Scottish Tories wanting to hang up the closed for business sign the budget we debate today sets Scotland on an ambitious economic path for the coming year £270 million that's a 64 per cent increase will be delivered to the economy jobs and fair work portfolio including a 70 per cent increase in business research and investment funding and new growth accelerator will ensure that new or improved properties pay no rates for a year and Scotland's new bans and rates of income tax will ensure that the majority of Scottish taxpayers pay less than elsewhere in the UK the best deal by far meanwhile between 2010 and 2020 the Tory UK government has imposed an 8 per cent cut to Scotland's discretionary budget that's £2.6 billion lower in real terms a decade of Westminster austerity has left families across Scotland worse off and put an immense amount of pressure on our public services it's a hugely challenging time and our priorities are laid out in this budget for all to see and to judge and that's why this budget I will Jackson Carlaw we had elections in 2015 2016 and 2017 why did you not have why did the member not have the courage of her convictions to say that she would be putting up taxes when the electorate could make a judgment about it rather than waiting till she could hide from the voters from the judgments she's now making I'm sure the benches over here have seen the recent polls that show that the majority of the Scottish public supports our tax plan this budget provides for a £400 million increase in health spending alone and that's well above inflation for a total record spend of £13.1 billion it delivers £756 million to fulfil the promise of 50,000 affordable homes by 2021 it doubles free childcare and early learning and provides free personal care for those under 65 who need it and this budget also looks out for the most vulnerable with a £50 million end homelessness together fund a £50 million child poverty fund and £100 million to mitigate the worst of Tory welfare cuts it combines measures for a strong economy with policies that also build a fairer society yet if the Tories had their way fairness would be stripped away with £300 million in cuts under their tax plans programmes like the baby box which ensure that every child gets the best start in life regardless of income would be eliminated branded by these benches as vanity projects the budget aims to provide basic human decency for all and build a prosperous society that's not vanity true vanity is coming to this chamber year after year calling for tax cuts for the best off and ignoring the plight of the worst off I support this budget because I choose fairness for Scotland I choose human decency and I choose a sustainable economy and before moving to closing speeches I'm disappointed you just made it Mr Gray I'm disappointed that Emma Harper is not in for the closing speeches it's an old saying I'm singing and I'm tired of saying it it's disrespectful to the chair it's disrespectful to your colleagues in the chamber and I expect an explanation I call Monica Lennon Ms Lennon please to close for Labour The cabinet secretary opened a debate by saying that compromise and consensus has characterised this budget will in its current form the budget fails to protect the most vulnerable in our society and I don't think the people of Scotland appreciate being compromised in this way building consensus around cuts to communities is nothing to celebrate the budget does not raise enough revenue and it fails every one of Scottish Labour's five budget tests it does not halt austerity it will not stop the growth of poverty it does not redistribute power or wealth and it does not grow our economy in the interests of the many the alternative plan Scottish Labour has put forward passes every one of these tests our proposals our proposals would raise almost a billion pounds of extra stimulus for the Scottish economy investment that would save lifeline local services fund a pair eyes for our public sector workers put money back in the pockets of working families by topping up child benefit in a second by £5 per week and deliver an extra £100 million of spending above what's in the budget for the national health service I'll give way to the cabinet secretary Monica Lennon answered the question that I asked earlier where should the 3% pair eyes threshold be pegged Monica Lennon Cabinet secretary you haven't funded the public sector pair eyes you haven't built that out so it's the cabinet secretary's job to ask the questions maybe you should check your job description cabinet secretary but back to my remarks our costed alternative is proof of our ambition for Scotland we are demonstrating that where the political will exists there is no reason to be timid or tinker around the edges so I am sad to hear today not just one but several SNP politicians in their speeches or from a sedentary position like the First Minister earlier on dip into that Tory playbook to say that our proposals are just a wish list and I say to Ben Macpherson there is nothing amateur about challenging austerity and costing radical alternatives that's what the people of Scotland want Mr Macpherson our plans are ambitious and we make no apology for that and on tax and on tax well I hear the cabinet secretary for the economy and my ear has not mentioned Wales which makes a nice change but on our tax plans as Ian Gray said the important narrative here is about ending the misery of austerity ending the misery of austerity cabinet secretary our alternative tax plans will ensure that the richest pay their fair share I've taken some intervention already I'll make some progress that the richest will pay their fair share and seven out of 10 tax payers won't pay up any more our plans just like the SNP's ensure that those earning up to £33,000 won't pay up any more in tax than they do at the moment but unlike the SNP our plans ask the very richest in our society to pay their fair share by dropping the threshold for the 45-pence rate to 60,000 and introducing a new 50p rate for those earning over 100,000 our proposals will raise vital money for public services by asking those who can afford it including those on MSP salaries to pay a bit more to take one example the SNP's tax proposals mean MSPs would only pay 29 pence extra in income tax every week under our plans it's almost £8 extra per week we believe that it's only fair to ask those who can afford it to pay a bit more in order to reinvest in the public services that we all use and depend on I'd like to make some progress and despite manifesto after manifesto pledge from the SNP supporting a 50p rate of tax this government has broken its promise to actually use the power to make the richest pay their fair share and as Ian Gray said it only seems to come around every time there's an election when it's the SNP so the bottom line is this the SNP's tax plans are timid and tinkering around the edges is simply not good enough when Scotland is blighted by widening inequality James Kelly got no answer from the cabinet secretary when he asked specifically what this budget will do to reverse the growth in child poverty and Elaine Smith used her time in this debate to talk about the shameful growth in child poverty with projections telling us that by 2020 100,000 more children will be in poverty that's why Labour supports the give that's why Labour supports will we know the SNP don't so that's why let me tell the chamber that Labour supports the give me five campaign supported by charities and faith groups and trade unions across Scotland so we are listening to people in the community and that is why Mark Griffin has tabled amendments to the social security bill to lift 30,000 children out of poverty and on to local government we refuse to allow on local government we refuse no i won on local government we refuse to allow the SNP's assertion that they have dealt local government a fair hand to go unchallenged since 2011 budget negotiations year after year have squeezed and shortchanged local councils causula have said no thank you mr harvey causula have said that local authorities need 545 million pounds to protect lifeline services and that is what Labour's funding package would deliver because in the real world because in the real world cuts to local councils mean cuts to vital local services and that has a serious impact on people's everyday lives and it hits the most vulnerable the hardest the reality no thank you as the reality of these cuts begins to bite it means library closures bigger class sizes more broken promises redundancies the closure of community centres and many more the scottish government claims councils are getting a fair deal but how then does the cabinet secretary explain why nine out of ten austerity job losses in scotland have been from local councils with 28 000 local government post cuts in the last seven years that doesn't sound fair to me meanwhile hardworking staff have had their pace squeezed at the same time with demand and pressure is rising now patrick harvey speaking about his own budget deal said that on public sector pay it's still not ideal the greens have voted for the snp's austerity budget when there's no extra money for pay or inflation or for demand pressures in many many areas and it was the members that are closing seconds mr harvey to only have a few more seconds okay well i'll have to skip past all the things that greens have said in their previous love letters to local government deputy presiding officer despite all of the rhetoric when given the opportunity to actually use the powers they have it's obvious this government is running scared declining to introduce a 50p rate for hired earners despite pledging this election after election refusing to use the power to top up benefits which could reduce poverty in scotland for the five pounds top up the child benefit i'll say no more thank you thank you very much i call adam talk in support for the conservators mr talk in space thank you thank you presiding officer i think three themes have emerged from this afternoon's general discussion about the tax about the budget the first is that this is a high tax budget it's a budget that taxes success it's a budget that taxes aspiration and yet it's a budget which has been presented as we know in a climate in which the Scottish government's overall budget is going up it's going up by 479 million pounds in real terms so there is no need for the tax rises that have been presented but what do we get from the snp green alliance what we get is this a nurse on 30 000 pounds will pay more tax a primary school teacher or a social worker on 35 000 pounds a year will pay more tax a police officer or a secondary school teacher on 40 000 pounds a year will pay more tax and a gp in our nhs will pay more tax ordinary hardworking families public sector employees providing the front line services on which we all rely and depend all paying more tax it's bad for them presiding officer it's bad for them presiding officer it's bad for their families it's bad for the economy and it's bad for scotland the only good news presiding officer is that it will also be bad for the snp's electoral prospects in every derrick mcleigh cloud there is i suppose a silver lining a silver lining that he keeps down the back of his sofa for the day when patrick harvey comes to visit because it hasn't gone down very well has it presiding officer this plan to make scotland the highest taxed part of the united kingdom eight out of ten business owners oppose tax hikes even business for scotland chief executive gordon macintire kemp myrdo phrases new best friend has said that it is not a positive move the scottish chambers of commerce have warned that it could take years to repair the economic damage of higher taxes the scottish retail consortium has said income tax increases should be firmly knocked on the head and cbi scotland have said that higher taxes in scotland will make it harder to attract investment but did derrick mcleigh the finance secretary listen to any of these voices did he listen to any of this advice no he listened only to the greens who urged him to do nothing but thrust his hands even deeper into the pockets of hardworking scots and taxed them and taxed them and taxed them again until the pips squeak so that's the first theme in this budget the second theme no the second theme in this budget is chronic low growth the scottish fiscal commissions report the scottish fiscal commissions report which accompanied derrick mcleigh's draft budget last month makes for incredibly depressing reading growth forecasts president officer running at only half the rate of the UK the phraser of allander institute says it's deeply disappointing that for the duration of the smp's decade in power scotland has been stuck in a nationalist cycle of chronically weak growth and to my mind to my mind the key figure the key figure in all the budget documentation that we have been presented with in this budget cycle is 16.5 billion pounds for this is the cost presiding officer to the scottish economy of the smp's decade of mismanagement their failure since 2007 to keep pace with the performance of the UK economy as a whole will by the time of the next election cut 16 and a half billion pounds from the value of the scottish economy that's 100 million pounds every single month so when we say that the first priority is to grow the economy this is why because you cannot have the world leading public services we all rightly demand without the strong economy to pay for them the third theme the third theme presiding officer in this afternoon's debate has been that this is a budget of betrayal the smp was elected on a manifesto commitment to freeze the basic rate of income tax throughout this parliament a promise abandoned the smp would protect those on low and middle incomes they said a vow ignored nicola sturgeon herself said that it is not right to increase income tax for those who are on the basic rate a commitment to the people of scotland betrayed the government will not increase income tax she said the smp will not increase the basic rate of income tax or increase the additional rate she said likewise john swinney the last thing i'm going to do is to put up teachers taxes he said promise after promise after promise after promise breached broken betrays labors answer labors answer is bewildering their answer is that the betrayal doesn't go far enough and that taxes should be hiked even more pfi contracts should be bought out a cool 29 billion pounds the railway should be renationalised cost unknown behavioural consequences of pushing up income tax completely uncosted same old same old from old labour tax spend regulate nationalise repeat our response presiding officer is simple our response is to say to the people of scotland that it does not have to be like this we do not have to be locked into a dance between nationalists and socialists to see who can tax scots more there is an alternative there is another way a way that puts the economy first that prioritises growth that makes scotland not the highest tax part of the UK but the best place in the UK to do business what we needed today is a budget for growth a budget for business a budget the backs scotland's hard working families not one that rips ever more money out of their pockets but that's the opposite of what we've got Derek Mackay's budget is a missed opportunity it does not deserve our support presiding officer and it will not get it thank you very much i call Derek Mackay cabinet secretary till approximately five fifteen please okay thank you uh preside deputy presiding officer i think we should reflect on the bruce crawford's uh contribution because it was quite a sober contribution around the um technicalities around the budget but they're actually very significant in terms of the complexity of the system but it's important that we understand it and the work that's been done around transparency for the budget process review group the fact that we have to work so closely with the SFC and the OBR is significant and i'll come back to that when i're fair to Labour's proposition patrick harvey made a number of very positive contributions throughout the budget process and it is in that context and it is that context that in the national interest we have secured a deal for scotland in terms of those meaningful proposals a further when it was mentioned over the course of the debate and particularly attracted to i have to say is that the opposition should give evidence on the air proposals to parliamentary committee that has a certain appeal to it but of course i gave i gave opposition parties the opportunity to have that independent modelling of their proposition so we could have a matured debate as we use that most significant tax lever of income tax and some people chose to use it and some people didn't Kenny Gibson and Ivan McKay very helpfully went through the exposing of the Tory party's spending plans the new left wing of the Scottish Tory party and i'm glad that someone is keeping a record of the rest because you just can't raise less and spend more not right now. Dean Lockhart specifically spoke about the SFC forecast apparently totally ignorant to the fact that the greatest danger to the Scottish economy is Brexit and undermining the issues around working age population and that population issue is significant yes i will. Dean Lockhart one of the central targets of the SNP's national performance framework is for the Scottish economy to match the UK economy's growth levels that has cost 16.5 billion pounds of lost GDP over the time the SNP has been in power do you recognise that it's time for a new direction in the economic policy? Dean Lockhart actually what the SFC is forecasting is growth in income tax and growth that will help support our spending plans that's actually what the SFC has forecast of course we want to grow the economy more and that's why we're investing hundreds of millions of pounds to stimulate and grow the Scottish economy in the face of real terms resource reductions from the Tory party and Brexit madness that will harm the whole of the UK economy under every scenario and particularly Scotland as well but the Tories will also have to answer to business as to why you're opposing the £100 million support for businesses in Scotland as well and having delivered the number one ask of businesses which was to move the rates poundage to CPI rather than RPI. Murdo Fraser was unaware of the figure that would have to be found if we followed Tory tax policies is no longer £501 million of cuts to the public sector but £556 million Murdo Fraser asked why has some road projects come to an end because we've built the roads and we built the roads we built the roads that's why that particular budget line has come to an end he suggested that we would be reducing the resources for broadband when in fact we've embarked on a £600 million investment package for broadband which will be way better than is delivered in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Tories have £556 million worth of secret cuts but I'll leave it there in turn to the Labour Party who of course only just a few weeks ago had a motion of no confidence in the budget now they've found the confidence to present their own budget they've just shown themselves to have absolutely no competence in delivering any form of coherent plan James Kelly James Kelly at the shadow cabinet I've got a cunning plan apparently vetoed by Richard Leonard and apparently I've sprung the budget process on the Labour Party's annual leadership contest 10 years 10 years in government and with the 10 leaders of the Labour Party in Scotland now I have to make a very important case around this I presented the pay uplift in terms of threshold moving to over 36,000 pounds for a 3% uplift more than the Labour Party is committing to in terms of public sector pay but the really telling question this billion pound budget plan that they have is when asked about just one element just the income tax element what was the effect on behavioural change on their tax plans now James Kelly says he's worked with spice you see spice told the Labour Party that that was the static figure so in fact it wipes hundreds of millions of pounds off their income tax policy alone now that's that that's just income tax and they know it we have to by law use the Scottish fiscal commission forecast to deliver a budget that's what draws down the resources from treasury to spend on public services it's clear that the Labour Party aren't fit for administration they're not even fit for opposition in this Scottish Parliament now Miles Briggs I'll give way Ian Ray explain behavioural change Cabinet Secretary who brought to this Parliament a budget with a £50 million mistake in the middle of his tax plan which he has had to correct today and who made and who made an 86 million pound arithmetical error in his local government provision he's not on the strongest ground when it comes to fiscal competency is he cabinet secretary well of course of course presiding officer that was more more nonsense from former leader Ian gray one of the one of the 10 you see if you want to talk about local government's financial settlement it's up it's up in real terms being opposed by the Labour Party before you even get to raising the council tax no wonder cosla have just now welcomed the budget movement from this government in alliance with the green party to ensure that that above inflation increase is delivered and I have to say in fairness to coslas resources spokesperson she says first and foremost I am pleased that both mr mckay and the scottish green party have listened to what coslas has told him and they have taken our concerns on board that is why today I give credit where it is due now I have to say that spokesperson of course is in fact a Tory councillor but speaks but speaks which should be used no wonder the tories are silent right now which speaks for cosla of course they'll welcome those extra resources to Scotland's local government as well as the resolution to the northern isles as well I'll take the intervention Brian Whittle can I thank my comrade for for taking the intervention I wonder you take this as a budget to protect services I wonder if he's aware that the SNP Labour coalition in south Ayrshire are proposing to cut teacher numbers by one in six and stop all outdoor learning and remove school crossing patrols reduce the budget for learning disability services and children with disabilities and mental health services I wonder how he would how did it be I would reconcile the necessity for a council to even consider so it's damaging cuts against the first minister's assertion that education is this SNP government's first priority because Mr Whittle in that local authority is a consequence of our decisions on the local government order that will follow they'll have nine point four million pounds extra to spend so of course they can look at those decisions and the tories will oppose all of that as they are back to all of the raise less raise less spend more attitude of the Tory party Miles Briggs in fairness asked about Edinburgh city council on the same methodology they'll have twelve point four million pounds extra as a consequence of the deal arrived at today which I'm sure will be opposed by the Conservatives we are the lowest tax part of the UK the fairest tax part of the UK we will deliver a deal that ensures that free prescriptions continue free personal care free higher education no rates for a hundred thousand properties tackling the attainment gap expanding free childcare 50 000 new affordable homes above inflation investment in police above inflation investment in universities and colleges and above inflation investment in local government as well as protecting our precious NHS this budget delivers stability stimulus and sustainability for our public services in a fair way it's investing in today and our future it's investing in growth yes there is divergence from the UK government because we want to build a better country and I believe our proposition commands the support of the Scottish people as well even on income tax appalled by the times of all newspapers showed that people backed our proposition by two to one popular support for our tax plans popular support for our investment plans and our public services popular support to tackle inequality as well as in a parliament of minorities we have reached out we have found consensus we have a deal that works for Scotland we are building a better country in the face of Tory cuts so when we approve this budget I believe we speak for the majority of Scotland and that's why I'm very proud to support and present this budget today thank you very much that concludes our debate on the budget bill the next item of business is consideration of our bureau motion sitting at our business programme I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now and I call on jophus patrick to move motion 10209 formally moved thank you very much no member has asked to speak against the motion therefore the question is that motion 10209 be agreed are we all agreed we are the next item is consideration of four parliamentary bureau motions motions 10210 to 10212 an approval of SSIs and motion 10213 on the budget bill these questions will be put at decision time sorry sorry sorry class jophus patrick to move the motions first of all move together thank you very much these motions will be put at decision time to which we now come and the first question is that amendment 10183.1 in the name of murder Fraser which seeks to amend motion 10183 in the name of Derek Mackay on stage one of the budget scotland number two bill be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on amendment number 10183.1 in the name of murder Fraser is yes 30 no 95 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed the next question is that amendment 10183.2 in the name of James Kelly who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Derek Mackay be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on the amendment in the name of James Kelly is yes 23 no 102 there were no abstentions the amendment is therefore not agreed the next question is that motion 10183 in the name of Derek Mackay on stage one of the budget scotland bill be agreed are we all agreed we're not agreed we'll move to a vote members may cast their votes now the result of the vote on motion 10183 in the name of Derek Mackay is yes 69 no 56 there were no abstentions the motion on stage one of the budget bill is therefore agreed I propose to ask I propose to ask a single question on the four parliamentary bureau motions does anyone object please see so now no the question is that motions 10210 to 10213 be agreed are we all agreed we are agreed and that concludes decision time we'll move now to members business in the name of Ross Greer on bus services and we'll just take a few moments for members to change their seats