 The next item of business is a debate on motion 4472 in the name of Derek Mackay on the local government finance Scotland order 2017. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons and I call on Derek Mackay to speak to and move the motion. Up to eight minutes please cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, the excitement continues. The purpose of today's debate on the local government finance order is to seek Parliament's approval to the guaranteed allocations of revenue funding to individual local authorities for 2017-18. It also seeks agreement to the allocation of additional funding for 2016-17, which has been identified since the 2016 order was approved this time last year. The 2017-18 settlement delivers a strong settlement for local government as we recognise that local government is essential to the health, wellbeing and prosperity of every community in Scotland. The Scottish government is committed to working together in partnership with local government and the total package of funding available in 2017-18 continues to be focused on the delivery of our joint priorities to deliver sustainable economic growth together with protecting frontline services and the most vulnerable in our society. In 2017-18, the Scottish government will provide councils with a total funding package worth over £10.4 billion. That includes revenue funding of over £9.6 billion and support for capital expenditure of over £786 million. Today's order seeks Parliament's approval for the distribution and payment of over £9.3 billion out of the total revenue of over £9.6 billion. The remainder will be paid out as specific grant funding or other funding, which will be distributed later as agreed with local government. As part of the overall package, we will provide an additional £107 million to support the integration of health and social care services, assist local authorities in raising attainment and closing the attainment gap by providing attainment Scotland funding of £170 million, maintain the pupil-teacher ratio and remove the council tax freeze and implement council tax reforms. With regard to the final point, I was pleased to see that all 32 local authorities have now set their council tax levels for next year, with all councils increasing their levels by no more than 3 per cent. That will provide most councils with increased spending power, whilst at the same time providing an element of protection to some of the most vulnerable in our society. A further £160 million funding for local government was announced during stage 1 of the budget bill, and the revenue funding element, £130 million, is included in the order that is being debated today. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. He will know that in the budget yesterday, the chancellor of the Exchequer announced an additional £144 million in Barnett consequentials coming to the Scottish Government for the next financial year. Has the cabinet secretary reflected on how much, if any, that money might be given to local authorities, particularly given the pressures on some of them to introduce local rates relief schemes for businesses that are hit by the rates revaluation? Derek Mackay to confirm that no decisions have been taken in that context, but specifically on the local rates relief schemes, I believe that the £160 million that local authorities at that time weren't anticipating is certainly to be used at their discretion. I encourage local authorities to think about relevant local rates relief schemes with the resources that they have. It is very interesting having looked at the 32 local authority budgets and spending decisions that they have taken that many will have that option, and some are actively considering whether a local rates relief scheme is appropriate to them. Taking the additional funding along with next year's settlement plus the other sources of income available to councils through the reforms to council tax and funding for health and social care integration, the overall potential increase in spending power to support local authority services amounted to over £400 million, or 3.9 per cent. However, as a result of 11 councils not increasing their council tax levels by the maximum allowable 3 per cent, that has reduced overall support for services, that figure to £383 million, or 3.7 per cent in cash terms. That represents a very strong and fair settlement under the circumstances. For information, in addition, there's over £112 million of revenue funding not covered by this order, which will be distributed later, including £37.5 million for the teacher's induction scheme, £22.5 million for temporary accommodation funding, £42.9 million being the balance of the council tax reduction scheme funding, and £9.4 million being the balance of discretionary housing payments funding. The 2017 order also seeks approval for the changes to the funding allocations for 2016-17 of over £51.7 million, which were either held back from the 2016 order, or have been added in order to fund a number of agreed spending commitments that have subsequently arisen. Those include £37.5 million to the funder teachers induction scheme, £5 million to support the 1 plus 2 languages policy, £2.4 million to support the council tax reform changes, and £1.7 million to provide additional financial support to flooded communities. Although not part of today's order, the settlement for local government includes £756.5 million, which fulfilled our commitment to COSLA that we would maintain local government's share at 26 per cent of the Scottish Government's capital budget. That was before the extra £30 million that I announced at stage 1 of the budget bill, which is additional to that and brings a total of capital to £786.5 million. A fair and competitive business rate regime is critical to our economy. The early range of measures that I announced included in the draft budget, including the cutting the poundage by 3.7 per cent, taking 8,000 businesses out of large business supplement, increasing the small business bonus threshold, and overall a tax cut worth £155 million next year. In addition to that, further measures were announced, which take the total release available in £1718 to £660 million, including the additional support for key sectors such as hotels, pubs, restaurants and cafes, renewables nationwide, and those with offices in Aberdeensia. It is, of course, up to councils how to decide, as we have just touched upon, how best to deploy the additional funding that I have announced for local government, along with all the other resources at their disposal, but the measures that I have taken did free up councils to use their powers through the Community Empowerment Act to introduce local rates release schemes to address any other local issues. The total funding from the Scottish Government to local government next year amounts to more than £10.4 billion. Those funding proposals deliver a fair financial settlement for local government, which will be strengthened by joint working to improve outcomes for local people with the key commitments of improving educational attainment and health and social care integration provided for. I now move that the Parliament approves the local government finance Scotland order for 2017. I now call Alex Rowley to speak to and move amendment 4472.1 up to six minutes, Mr Rowley. I thank you, Presiding Officer. In moving amendment today, can I draw Parliament's attention to this report that was published this week by the Accounts Commission? In particular, I draw their attention to where the Accounts Commission talks about future funding and they say, if approved, the 1718 settlement means that total revenue will decrease by 9.2% from £10.5 billion in 2010-11 to £9.5 billion in 1718. They go on to say that the Fraser Y Allander Institute predicts a total reduction of £1 billion to local government revenue funding between 2016-17 and 2020-21. That would be my key point in saying to the Government today that we basically have to, the Government needs to get its head out of the sand and recognise the massive challenges that local public services are facing right across Scotland. Kate Forbes, thank you. Does the member recognise, though, that reduction is less than the reduction in the Scottish Government's overall budget? Alex Rowley. I have been clear for the last number of years that failed Tory austerity is having a real detrimental impact on public services right across Scotland. I am absolutely clear about that. I am equally clear that this Parliament was never set up to simply be a conveyor belt for failed Tory austerity. We need to stand up for Scotland, stand up for public services and invest in public services. The deal that has been done with the Greens and the SNP will result in £170 million less going into local government budgets. I spoke yesterday to a councillor who is standing down, who is retiring, and I would want to put on record, Presiding Officer, our thanks to all the councillors, all parties and none that will be standing down in May. The councillor made the point to me and said, why would anybody want to be a councillor in this current climate? I said, what do you mean by that? He said, we will always seem to do, year on and year out, is decide what services to cut. That is the reality of local government at this time. On that, while Derek Mackay talks about £9.6 billion, what we have to remember is what that means for real people out there in terms of the cuts that are taking places to services. What that means for people is that there are tens of thousands of people on waiting lists up and down Scotland trying to get an assessment to get a care package. However, those who have had an assessment are told that they need a care package, but are unable to get that care package. For people trapped in hospitals, it means that they cannot get out of hospitals because the local authorities do not have the investment to be able to put the care packages in place. I would pick up on what COSLA said yesterday in terms of Philip Harman's budget and the consequentials of that budget for Scotland. I would say to Mr Mackay the case that COSLA is making for part of those consequentials to be passed on to local government into areas like health and social care, where there is clearly a need for further investment and into education, into the classroom and into teaching assistance. Mr Mackay also mentioned the council tax, and I would make an appeal to him today. A few months ago, in a debate similar to that, Mr Mackay said that he was willing to get round the table with other parties to look at an alternative to the council tax. In 2007, the First Minister said that the council tax is unfair and that there is no amount to tinker around with the council tax to make it fair. I agreed with him and I agree with him today, and that is why we need to get together, work together and get a replacement to the council tax. I would say to Mr Mackay that he will look at bringing all parties back together again, given that we took part in the commission previously and believe that that would lead to the unfair council tax being removed. We would need to agree a deal that says that our starting point is that we are going to get ready the council tax and we need to set a timetable for it. I think that the government should be willing to get round the table with other parties. The council tax is unfair and the council tax cannot be allowed to continue. It is regressive and it must go. Let us work together to get ready that council tax. In local government, 27,000 jobs have gone over the past 10 years in local government. We need to be able to address that and invest. Bruce Crawford, wait for your microphone please. I wonder if Alex Rowley could explain something for me. Labour complained in here about the settlement for local authorities, yet in Stirling, the Tory Labour Control Council just agreed a budget of £3.5 million policy growth within it while freezing the council tax. Does that not clearly demonstrate the reality that it is actually quite a good settlement for local government on the ground, but all that Labour is doing here is continually complaining about it? If we could stop complaining about it, we might be able to have a serious discussion about the future in these circumstances. Alex Rowley. The council tax is regressive. It is unfair. Some local authorities have taken the decision that it would be unfair to put an increase on to the residents area that they represent. What we need to do is get ready the council tax, and that is why I am saying to Derek Mackay today, I am saying to him, let us work together. The council tax is unfair, it cannot continue, let us work together to get an alternative. 27,000 jobs have gone in local government since 2010. We need to invest because it is the knock-on impact on local economies. We need to be working with local government to drive local economies, to drive the regional economies of Scotland, and we must invest in skills, apprenticeships and jobs. If we are going to grow the tax take and we need to grow that tax take in the future, then our partners in driving the economy of Scotland is local government. Let us invest in local government, let us work together. I move the amendment in my name. I now call more to Fraser. Up to five minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think it would be a remiss of me to start this debate without congratulating the finance secretary on his new look. I am not sure if it is modelled on Clark Kent or Geoffrey Howe circa 1981, but if it is designed to improve his focus on the figures under his command, that is something that we should all welcome. I have some sympathy for the points that Alex Rowley made in his amendment this afternoon, but I do not think that it would be responsible to vote against the local government finance order today, after the point where most, if not all local councils, have already set their budgets for next year. That should not be taken in any way as our endorsement of this Government's deal for local authorities, who once again have been treated as the kicking boys in the SNP's budget process. As Alex Rowley pointed out, the report this week from the Accounts Commission puts this all into context. According to the commission's deputy chair, Ronnie Hines, councils are operating in an increasingly demanding environment, with councillors after May facing major challenges from continued reductions in their funding from the Scottish Government and greater demands for services from an ageing population and in parts of the country a growing school population. Councils are being asked to do more and more at the same time as their budget is being squeezed. The combination of an ageing population and a greater priority needing to be given to schools increases the cost burden on councils. That is all happening at a time when council budgets have been slashed by this Government according to the Accounts Commission by nearly 10 per cent since 2010-11. It is a continual mantra from the Scottish Government that it has been fair in its settlement to local government, despite Westminster cuts, but the true situation has been laid bare in reports such as this week's from the Accounts Commission and the previous publications by the Fraser of Allander Institute. We know, for example, that the total managed expenditure available to the Scottish Government will be at its highest ever level in the coming financial year in real terms, even before the Barnett consequentials announced in yesterday's budget. In relation to the amount of money available to the Scottish Government for discretionary spend, which is their preferred measure, according to Fraser of Allander, this is roughly the same level as it was when the SNP came to power in 2007 in real terms. Before yesterday's Barnett consequentials were added. If we take as the baseline 2010-11, which of course the SNP preferred to do, because that was the highest historic year previously, Fraser of Allander said that the discretionary element has fallen since that date by just 3.8 per cent in real terms, nowhere near the figure of 9.2 per cent routinely claimed by SNP ministers. In a contest for truth between the Scottish Government and the widely respected and independent Fraser of Allander Institute, I know which I'm going to believe first. The Scottish Government's discretionary spend is down at worst by 3.8 per cent in real terms, but in the same period it has cut council budgets by nearly 10 per cent. How can that possibly be a fair settlement? Talking about the settlement with local authorities, we are now at 11 local authorities that have not chosen to increase council tax to up to 3 per cent. That is the equivalent of £383 million that councils could have that they are choosing not to take for public services. Is that a fair settlement? I think that that is a fair settlement if they are not choosing to use additional income. Ruth Crawford made reference to Sterling County. I applaud the excellent work that is done by Conservatives in local government in keeping the council tax bills down. They have had to make some pretty hard choices. They have had to drive through efficiencies, and those have been good. Nevertheless, we also have the factor in the fact that council tax bills for many people are going up due to no action taken by councils themselves but due to legislation forced through this Parliament by the SNP with support. Some people are saying that council tax is going up 24 per cent, which many people on lower incomes will struggle to pay. The irony is that at the same time that we are seeing the substantial hikes in council tax, those taxpayers will actually be getting poorer services in return. As the Accounts Commission put it this week, paying more for potentially fewer or reduced services will be a difficult argument to sustain. It is hard to put it any more clearly than that. Yesterday, the chancellor announced some £350 million extra for the Scottish Government over the next four years. Our view is that at least some of that cash should go to councils to alleviate their pressures. That would allow councils, if they chose to fund local relief schemes for businesses' hate, hit by rates revaluation following the lead from south of the border. The local government finance settlement that we are seeing today penalises local authorities, and it will mean that local residents will be paying much more in taxes by getting poorer services in return. The only consolation is that, eight weeks from today, the council taxpayers of Scotland will have the opportunity to cast their verdict on the performance of the SNP Government and the way it treats local government, and I, for one, look forward to hearing their voice. We now move to the open debate. Speeches of four minutes, please. May I have John Mason to be followed by Ross Thompson? Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have to accept that in general times are tight. None of us can do as much as we would like to do. I welcome the Audit Scotland report that showed that the change to council funding since 2010-11 is approximately the same as the reduction in the Scottish Government total budget. That is around 8 per cent. The specific points that I would like to make are firstly, if anyone wants more money for local government, they have to say where it is coming from. Broadly speaking, that means either they cut the money somewhere else or they raise more in taxation. Taking the first one concerning cutting money somewhere else, I do find it fascinating that the opposition parties are not daring to say this. They bleed on about wanting more money for local government, but the obvious answer would be to cut health or universities or some other budget. Do they have the guts to say that? No, they do not. Instead, they try to be all things to all people, saying how much they would support more spending on councils, but they refuse to take the responsible position, which means more money for one sector, meaning less elsewhere. We have been absolutely clear when we put forward putting top-rated tax up to 50p and that would bring between £70 million to £120 million, so we have been clear how we would pay for extra funding going into our schools. John Mason. I will come on to taxation in just a minute, but to carry on with the alternatives for spending. I find it strange that the opposition parties all seem to agree that the way that the Scottish Government has split up the cake is the correct one. All they are arguing for is a bigger cake, but they never argue that one slice is too big for any sector. Of course, the other option is raising more taxation, as Mr Rowley helpfully said. That is where I think the Tories are the most hypocritical, because they ask for more spending, but they run scared of taxation. However, other parties, which I understand is Mr Rowley's position, want to raise tax for those on £11,500, and I do not accept that that can be fair. They also want to take the risk of a 5p jump at the top, a 5p differential from the rest of the UK, which I would suggest to him does run the risk of raising even less revenues for people if they leave Scotland. I do accept that it is a balancing act, but I think that the Government has come to a reasonable position with increases to council tax and now some differentiation from the UK on income tax. My second main point would be the question of allocating resources between councils. Need clearly is the key factor in allocating resources. Of course, not everyone is going to be satisfied, but when you look at the per head allocations, first of all we have the three island authorities coming top, and that is fairly obvious that they have a lot of extra costs. In fourth place is Argyll and Bute, which has also a huge number of islands, so it has the same logic. And then you look at the next three, which are West and Bartonshire, Inverclyde and Glasgow, in fourth, fifth and sixth places per head of finance. I think that that is fair in the sense that most people's gut feeling would be that these are the kinds of councils that clearly need the most finances for subjects like health, poverty and other challenges. As a Glasgow MSP, I can accept that. Now I know that some opposition members would take the line that you only fight for your own patch and you forget about the rest of Scotland. But I do not think that that is a responsible approach to take. We all have a responsibility both for our local area and for the whole nation. Yes, there are difficult subjects like Edinburgh coping with tourists and Glasgow has the challenge of the Clyde tunnel. But we do have to make decisions and it's up to national government and local government to negotiate some of these things. My final point would be that councils must decentralise. There have been claims for Labour that the Scottish Parliament needs to decentralise and yet Labour in Glasgow has been one of the most centralist organisations that I know. And the SNP is promising £1 million per ward for local decision making if we win the election in May. Ross Thompson to be followed by Elaine Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to declare an interest as an Aberdeen City councillor. We hear from SNP ministers in this place that the funding settlement for Scottish councils is fair. But I want to make it abundantly clear to the Scottish Government that nobody in Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire is buying the SNP rhetoric they are seeing through it. Despite having contributed so much to the wider economy, Aberdeen City is yet again left at the bottom of the local government funding pile. No offence to my colleagues covering Mid Scotland in Fife, but Clackmannanshire gets more funding per head than Aberdeen and the people of Aberdeen do not believe that that is fair. To add insult to injury, Aberdeen City received one of the biggest cuts of any local authority in Scotland on top of being the lowest funded and will not even receive the promised 85 per cent of the national average for the year ahead. Despite all the empty rhetoric from the cabinet secretary about fairness towards local authorities, when you cut through the SNP spin and look at the figures, the Scottish Government has quite simply hammered the north-east of Scotland. Mike Rumbles. I understand what the member is saying. He is quite right to say what he is saying. He is criticising this order. It is absolutely terrible for the north-east. Should he not be using his vote as he is sent here by the people of the north-east to use to vote this order down and ask them to bring another one? Ross Thomson. In very vocal on behalf of the north-east—I think that my colleague Murdo Fraser articulated why at this stage the Scottish Conservatives will not be doing that—in Angus a 2.8 per cent cut, in Aberdeenshire a 2.9 per cent cut, in Aberdeen City a 4.6 per cent cut. In fact, Aberdeen is being squeezed almost twice as much as the average council in the country. If the cabinet secretary is on top of his figures, he will know that Aberdeen City is in a quite unique situation that two thirds of its income comes from business rates. Therefore, it was even more unfair that the SNP Government attempted to dress up extra funding for all Scottish councils as income that could be used to mitigate against business rate rises. I can assure the chamber that that fooled no-one in the north-east business community. Aside from the fact that every council in Scotland received a top-up and only Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire were expected to spend income on rates relief, Mr Mackay and the SNP declined to mention that the overall budgets for all local authorities were still being cut. A smaller cut is still a cut, and Mr Mackay be well served to follow the suggestion of my calling Murdo Fraser that the additional funding from UK Government could be used to support local relief schemes. The SNP's council tax increases are leaving thousands of local people facing increases in their council tax bills of anywhere between £113 in Bandy and about £600 in Bandage. Across Aberdeen, more than 30,000 properties will be affected and more than 45,000 in Aberdeenshire. Those figures illustrate the extent to which the SNP's council tax grab disproportionately hits the north-east families and households. Many of those same families will also miss out on a UK Government income tax cut that the SNP has refused to pass on. That is putting a significant burden on household budgets across the region and an SNP double whammy of paying more but getting absolutely less. Given all of this, the SNP is brave to be travelling to Aberdeen for their party conference next week. Perhaps when on stage, Mr Mackay and all the central belt by SNP Government will have the humility to finally admit that Aberdeen is the SNP's forgotten city and that the SNP has let down the people of the north-east of Scotland. It is clear from the recent Accounts Commission report that councils are doing what they can to keep their heads above water and deliver the vital services that our communities rely on. However, this Government is not helping them. Councils across Scotland have seen their funds slashed by hundreds of millions by this Government in the last year alone. The responsibility for the cuts to our councils, the inequality, the unemployment and the loss of service that comes as a result of these cuts is the clear responsibility of this SNP Government and they cannot keep passing the buck back to councils. Overall, since 2011, the SNP has cut council revenue budgets by £1.5 billion. At what point is the Government going to stop cutting and start investing in our communities? Councils have shaved their services down to the bone and there are no more efficiencies to be found. In the last five years alone, 15,000 people have been made redundant due to Scottish Government cuts and that's not just a number, that's people's lives, it's their families' futures and it's the local services that they have lost. Frequently we hear of task forces to help workers when private companies pull out of communities with the loss of several hundred jobs that the Scottish Government has sent in pace. Then there's the Scottish energy task force to deal with employment and skill losses in the energy sector. There was a Scottish steel task force set up to try and protect jobs at Dell and Clyde bridgeworks. Those are welcome, but there's not been a task force hazard to deal with the thousands of job losses that have occurred across local government. Sometimes local government is the biggest employer in our communities. In response to John Mason, it's clear that the Government wants to drain councils of power and funds into centralised functions, but it's councils that are best placed to identify the problems in their communities and in partnership with stakeholders and indeed the trade unions to get the solutions to those issues. However, cuts on top of cuts means that they're forced to reduce services, to increase charges and that impacts disproportionately on the most vulnerable. The number of over 75s in eight councils across Scotland is set to double by 2039. That means council services are going to cost more than they ever have before. This government is also letting young people down, passing cuts on to the next generation. The number of Scottish children living in temporary accommodation increased by 17 per cent last year. Children are missing out on books and places to study, with libraries closing and staff down by a third since 2010. Support staff are being cut from their schools, leaving thousands of children with additional needs without the help that they need. Those are all the direct result of short-sighted Scottish Government cuts. Council services are vital. They support the most vulnerable in society, they save lives and their services benefit all of us. They need to be properly funded. I thank the member for taking her intervention. She's halfway through her speech and she hasn't said anything yet about the Tory Government in London, who are cutting Scotland's budget by £2.9 billion. Elaine Smith. I thank the member for her intervention, because if she cares to listen, I'm just about to get to them. Sadly, between the Tories at Westminster and the SNP at Holyrood, there isn't much chance of councils being properly funded over the next few years. Scottish Labour, however, take the challenges that our society faces seriously, and we believe that the riches should pay a bit more to stop these destructive cuts to our essential local services. That's a sensible and progressive approach to stopping austerity. The regressive council tax should be replaced, as the SNP promised it would be years ago, not tweaked as they're doing now. A local government finance package that decreases employment, depletes services and defunds the young is unacceptable. We now have one of the most powerful devolved legislations in the world, two decades after this Parliament was established in 10 years. Since the SNP came to power, we should use those powers to end austerity, support our children in communities and deliver a fairer, more equal society for all. Andy Wightman is followed by Mike Rumbles. This is an important debate. It's this debate and our decision on the local government finance order this evening that provides the funding for a very wide range of vital public services from educating Scotland's young people to environmental health, social care, leisure and recreation, transport, housing and the very system of local democracy itself. Scottish Green politics is founded upon fundamental principles, one of which is radical democracy. We are a party that is committed to deepening and strengthening local democracy. The finance settlement today is a substantial improvement on the draft local government settlement, £160 million better in fact, and communities across Scotland will welcome this additional resource that has already mitigated many of the planned cuts in local services. The settlement that we are voting on today represents a change from a 1.6 per cent cut in real terms in the draft budget in December to a 0.1 per cent cut in real terms for this final settlement as evidenced by the spice analysis of 6 February 2017. Importantly, if we add the change to the council tax multiplier, which provides an additional £111 million of funding to local government, we are now looking at a 0.7 real terms increase in funding for local government budget 2016 to budget 2017. I accept, as others have mentioned, that local government is still facing massive challenges. Many of those are identified by the Accounts Commission earlier this week. I also accept that other parties interpret the numbers in a variety of ways. Indeed, that is part of the problem with this whole budget process and the lack of transparency was an issue identified by the local government and communities committee in its report on the draft budget. However, not only is it important to have more transparent reporting, we believe that we also need a completely new approach to local government finance. We have already debated the question of local tax and got nowhere. The regressive council tax remains, but I sincerely hope that this budget is agreed that we can have the further discussions that Alex Rowley was talking about on reform during this Parliament. However, in our view, more fundamental reform is still needed. I do not feel comfortable sitting in this Parliament and voting on how much money local government should receive. Together with council tax freezes and now rate capping, the growing centralisation of local government finance has undermined local democracy for too long. Only 12 per cent of the funding of Scotland's local authorities is under their own fiscal control. Even the meager autonomy is compromised by the Tory-style rate capping imposed not by statute but by the Scottish Government holding councils to ransom by punishing them if they set council tax rates that do not meet the preferences of the Scottish Government. The minister in his opening remarks talked about a 3 per cent council tax rise being, and I quote, allowed. He knows he has no statutory authority to impose that and that's precisely why that is not in this order today. The situation is why tomorrow we will be publishing a paper proposing a fiscal framework for local government. Just as a set of rules now exist to govern the financial relationship between the UK and Scotland, which provides a degree of clarity, certainty, transparency and predictability to the financial arrangements between both, so too should there be a similar framework in place governing the process by which local government finance is agreed. The finance order that is published today forms part of the budget deal agreed between ourselves and the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Government. I'm notwithstanding our real concerns about how the financial settlement is reached and in particular the constraints placed on councils fiscal autonomy. We'll be voting for the motion this evening. This vote is about providing the resources that deliver vital services to people right across Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Mike Rumbles to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Presiding Officer, 17 years ago I voted against the very first local government finance order presented to the Scottish Parliament. This order was of course presented by the coalition government of the day which I supported. I did not support that order, however, because perhead of population Aberdeenshire council was clearly underfunded and at the bottom of the queue. I happen to be a Liberal Democrat, but I was first and foremost elected to represent my constituents. And I say to the Conservatives in particular, and particularly the Conservatives from the northeast, that means I've prepared to use my vote against the government when I needed to. This vote against the government resulted in ministers accepting the need for change and in future finance orders improved funding for the northeast. They brought them back. I have to say that things have changed since those early days of the Parliament and not to the good. How many times have backbench SNP members voted against their government when their constituents have been badly affected or harshly affected by the actions of that government? It'll never happen. Well, there you are. That's my point, isn't it? How pathetic that is. There are occasions when it is really important to put party... It's worth listening, I think. There are occasions when it is important to put party interests to one side and use your vote in the interests of the people that you represent. This is one of those occasions. The order is... I've only got four minutes and I will if I have time. This order before us is a fraud. It purports to show that the government has kept its word and that no council would receive less than 85% of the average council funding. Independent research from the Scottish Parliament's own information service shows that using the government's own figures, Aberdeen City Council is being shortchanged by some £3.6 million by this order. The Scottish Government has fiddled the figures by taking the average not of the 32 Scottish councils, but only of 28. The finance minister knows this. It has taken the top four councils I will if I have time, but I'm halfway through. Presiding Officer, is that nodding? It's not the case that Aberdeen hasn't had its fair share, but can I make a wider question to my brumbles? That isn't about party politics. For us to change the formula would mean changing the partnership arrangements with local governments through COSLA. Is Mike Rumbles suggesting that I don't engage in that on-going partnership arrangement with COSLA to arrive at a different decision on how we distribute local government finance? Mike Rumbles. Over the last 17, 18 years, repeatedly from different finance ministers, and John Swinney was the master of this, it's entirely up to the finance minister to decide which funding formulas that particularly seem to work. I could have said that the Scottish Government is even worse with its own figures. I could have said that they previously promised no council would receive less than 85% of average funding support from the Scottish Government. But what the Scottish Government has done is to change their promise. They now promise that no council will have less than 85% of the spending power of the average council. That's their own revenues plus government support. As I have shown, however, the Scottish Government, even by changing their promise, can't achieve the 85% average without actually fiddling the figures. Now, there is no doubt that the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are being shortchanged by the Scottish Government. And Ross Thompson is holding his head in his hands there and I can see why. Not only have nearly half the homes across... Well, that's rather rude. There we are. Not only have nearly half the homes across the northeast on a very serious issue and he said it himself. He can't be that bad, can it, Ross? If these are your words. The northeast seen their council tax rise by up to 25% for no increase in council services. The two councils are once again at the end of the queue. Any northeast MSP can see that our region is being shortchanged. I can't understand why the five northeast conservative MSPs are not going to vote against this order. I can't understand where the other three are. They're not even here in the debate. I'm the only Liberal Democrat from the northeast. There are five conservative MSPs from the northeast and where are they? Any north MSP worth their salt would see that it's now to put party loyalties aside. That's what we should be doing. That's what we did and have done and you should be doing it. Conservatives and SNP. As I said 17 years ago, I voted against my own government's finance order because it was wrong. This order is wrong. In conclusion, we need all northeast MSPs to stand up for the people we represent and vote this order down. That was a bad call, particularly from the conservative finance spokesman. Ruth Gawr, to be followed by Brian Whittle. I'm happy to speak in support of the local government finance Scotland order 2017. I'm in no doubt the crucial role played by local government when it comes to the health, wellbeing and prosperity of every single community and constituency in Scotland. I believe that settlement ensures a strong and fair deal for local authorities. In the face of drastic Tory cuts to our own budget from Westminster, the Scottish Government has treated local government very fairly. This is not just the opinion on those benches, but one shared by the Accounts Commission. As we have heard, a report from the commission last year showed that the reduction in real terms funding of councils since 2010-11 is the same as the reduction in the Scottish Government's total budget over the same period. To quote it directly, taking into account 2016-17 funding, councils have experienced a real terms reduction in funding of 8.4 per cent since 2010-11. That is approximately the same as the reduction to the Scottish Government's total budget over the same period. Not at the moment. Furthermore, even the reductions that have been seen here are nothing like the cuts that are faced by local authorities in England, which amount to a 40 per cent real term reduction according to the local government association and leave local authorities in England in a serious funding crisis with many crucial services suffering. We are often criticised from the Opposition benches for comparing the work of this Scottish Government with that of its Tory counterpart in London. However, although we in Scotland remain at the mercy of the cuts and policies of a Tory Westminster Government that we did not vote for, I make no apology for drawing attention to the stark contrasts and to the hypocrisy of certain benches in this chamber or for commending this Scottish Government for the mitigation job. It so often finds itself forced into doing in response to decisions made in London. In contrast to the gungho approach of the Tories in Westminster, the Scottish Government must also be commended for its commitment to listening and to compromise in the course of the budget negotiations. As a result, additional attainment funding will come from the national budget and not from local taxation. Not only that, but local authorities will receive £120 million, more than previously committed to support schools across the country in closing the attainment gap. In addition, an extra £160 million of funding has been pledged to local government as a result of compromise and negotiation. The extra money together with other sources of support available through the actual and potential increases in council tax income and the support through the health and social care integration amounts to an overall increase of over £400 million. As such, as we have heard, the real terms increase in available support for local government in 2017-18 is now considerably more favourable when compared with the real terms increase in the overall Scottish budget. The contrast with the fate of councils in England at the mercy of a right wing austerity-driven Tory government could not be clearer. Presiding Officer, it is clear that this is a strong, fair and balanced settlement for local government reached through compromise and negotiation and ensuring that our local authorities are supported to deliver the crucial services that we all rely on. If I may just finish with a quote from one of the councillors in North Ayrshire, delivering better outcomes in partnership with our communities, reducing poverty and building a better future for our young people is at the very heart of what we are trying to do in North Ayrshire. We have managed to deliver a budget that not only achieves that balance but also helps those most in need while protecting front-line services and jobs. Indeed, there will be additional jobs as a result of our budget. That is not a quote from one of my SNP colleagues, that is from the Labour leader, Joe Cullinan. It sounds like a fair settlement to me. When discussing local government finance, we need to keep in mind that we are considering more than just entries on Derek Mackay's ledger. There are real people affected at the end of every decision that he and his Government make. In East Ayrshire, councillor having to deal with a three and a half per cent cut in their funding equating to £1.6 million. Although they are forced to make it a three per cent hike in council tax, that has not even come close to filling the gap. They have no option but to pass the cuts down the line. One of the most important activities councils undertake and one that is least talked about is their support for charities, community groups and other third sector organisations in their area. Whenever we talk about front-line services supported by councils, we would do well to include these third sector organisations in that group. My concern is that, given that the third sector is very often the most cost-effective way to deliver essential support services directly into local communities and with an ability to target communities' needs in a way impossible for central government, what will be the fallout when those services are cut from those receiving that lifeline? What happens to the service users of ad-action and commandant, which is a drop-in centre for recovering addicts, or more-of-a-day services, which is a mental health drop-in centre, or the players at power chair football, or the ace-race running club, or WG 13, giving our young people another chance for learning? All the line on life-changing services delivered by the third sector and volunteers. Let me tell you what will happen. Increased physical and mental issues will result in medical interventions, A&E admissions, some will end up in the judicial system or welfare system. Not my words directly from the service users themselves. John Mason. Given the problems that East Ayrshire seems to be facing, does he agree with his colleague that Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire should get a larger percentage of the money? I know that the Scottish Government is always keen to have a constructive debate in this chamber. Admittedly, the S&P dictionary definition of constructive debate reads as, "...fawning agreement regardless of logical flaws and spineless acceptance of exertions regardless of factual accuracy." Or comment on to dogma-driven strategy regardless of expected outcomes. See also Scottish screens. I will say to the member that there was a third option. That would have been less waste from the Scottish Government, for example, where the cap payment in I6 and NHS 24 had an overspend of £250 million, which I could bring in this resolution. Increased physical and mental issues will result in medical interventions, A&E admissions, some will end up in the judicial system or welfare system. Those are not my words directly from the service users themselves. Mr Mackay may force them to wipe them off the council ledger, but they will reappear on another page in the public ledger. However, the real cost is far more personal, I have had enough. It is not just third sector organisations where cuts to local authority budgets will lead to greater pressures on other budgets. Last week, the BBC revealed the outcome of research that I undertook into where food from their schools comes from. That revealed a number of examples where the food was being imported when it could be grown locally. I have no doubt that the decisions that led local authorities to buy chicken from Thailand and frozen mashed potatoes from France were driven in no small part by budget limitations. In much the same way Aberdeen City Council warned last week that if budgets are not increased, they may have to cut the amount of fruit and vegetables in their school meals. That is a Scottish local authority openly stating that it may be left open with no option but to offer school pupils meals with fewer fruit and vegetables. Mr Mackay needs to know and should know that rather than addressing the very issues that he and his Government allegedly hold most important, that is the growing health inequality gap, the growing attainment gap, care of the elderly and infirm, in other words the most vulnerable in our society, is those self-same people who will ultimately suffer the most. Numbers and statistics are people, Mr Mackay. Where is the social justice that you keep talking about? The SNP Government may talk about the importance of social justice, but with its actions it shows how little it understands it. Willie Coffey, and then we'll move to closing speeches. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. Just to remind Mr Whittle and the rest of his colleagues and everybody else that the Tories in East Ayrshire voted for the budget in its entirety. If it was that bad, why did you vote for it? Presiding Officer, today's order gives its effect to the budget approved by Parliament and puts vital cash into the hands of Scotland's councils. Roughly £10 billion is allocated to the councils and an extra £383 million will support local services as a result of the additional allocations made on top of other supports added to the baseline allocations. For my own authority, and here are the real figures in East Ayrshire, it means that our initial baseline allocation of £233 million, which itself is an increase on the previous year's baseline, will be further enhanced by another £10.5 million. When you take into account further additional support provided, meaning this year East Ayrshire Council will have around £242 million, an increase of 4.9 per cent to deliver all of our local services. This support allows our councils to fund education, health, social care, cultural leisure, roads and recycling and a host of other services. In addition, it will see over £2 million coming directly to schools in my constituency to help our young folk to raise their attainment to at least get on a par with our counterpart sales fair in Scotland. Helping to close the poverty-related attainment gap is surely something that we all want to support. It's a £750 million investment over the term of this Parliament. Why on earth would anybody want to oppose that? Sadly, Tory and Labour MSPs did oppose that. They voted against this vital cash coming to local schools in Kilmarnock-Larvin Valley and everywhere else, everywhere else in Scotland. But I bet, Presiding Officer, they'll be first in line to get their photos taken at these schools when we celebrate the achievements of these young people. In fact, St Joseph's Academy from Kilmarnock were in the Parliament just earlier on and I didn't hear Mr Whittle explaining to them why he voted against that school getting £86,000 extra as a result of this attainment fund. I kept quiet about that. As the member well knows, when schools visit, I don't get involved in politics. Unlike one of your colleagues who went completely political and over-the-top, that's why I didn't mention any of that. Willie Coffey. It's now on the record that the pupils at St Joseph's now know that the Tories voted against that £86,000 going to St Joseph's Academy. As part of the overall settlement, we will see substantial support of £250 million to take forward the integration of health and social care and a further £107 million to deliver the living wage for social care workers. This means that those in receipt of war pensions, for example, won't be penalised when they are assessed for social care. As I mentioned, the attainment fund is a significant investment and has already seen the appointment of 160 full-time teachers. What we should try to remember is that the last time Labour was in power, the council tax shot up by over 60 per cent in my authority and it was the SNP who froze it for nine years in a row. Un new rises like that will not be permitted again, but the councils can, if they choose to, raise an extra £70 million every year by deploying the 3 per cent uplift. I've got no time, I've got a bit to finish it. That 3 per cent uplift was supported by the Tories in Easter. One of the interesting developments has been to see which authorities have decided to continue with the council tax freeze. Despite all the shouting and screaming we've heard in this chamber over the past few years that the council tax freeze must end, coincidental perhaps, but they all appear to be Labour-led councils in all heading for an election in a matter of weeks. The local government settlement is a fair settlement and brings additional financial resources to support a wide range of local services. According to Audit Scotland, it broadly follows the same part of an allocation from the UK Government, which I will remind members, has sold a huge cut of nearly £3 billion to Scotland over the past 10 years to 2020. That was supported by Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster at the time, which goes some way to explaining why 40 of them lost their seats. Schools, pupils, teachers and social care workers and thousands of council staff across Scotland need the settlement today to be agreed by the Parliament so that they can all get on with the good work that they collectively do on Scotland's behalf. I hope that the Parliament backs the order at 5pm today. I rise to oppose the order in the name of Mr Mackay and support the amendment in the name of my colleague Alec Riley. It has been a very interesting and important debate, because it has brought out some of the issues in terms of people's attitude to local government. We have heard a series of speeches from SNP benches telling us how it is a fair settlement. That is obviously the line that has come out from SNP command. The reality is that £170 million has been cut from council budgets. In Glasgow alone, I remind Mr Mason, there is a £53 million shortfall. Those are not just figures on a spreadsheet. Jobs will be lost, libraries will be closed, care packages will be compromised and people on the ground will have to deal with the impact of those cuts. Alec Riley, drawing on his experience as a council leader and speaking to one of his colleagues, gave the example of why the difficulties local councillors face year on year having to deal with those budgetary challenges. That has brought out in the Accounts Commission report, because we see from that that there has been more than £1 billion of cuts since 2011, and the Fraser and Valander Institute forecasts that another £1 billion of cuts are coming down the line to 2021. Local government is facing the brunt of these. As Elaine Smith pointed out, the accumulation of the decisions that have been made by the SNP in control at the Scottish Parliament, where local councils have been penalised. There was another option and there was another way of doing it. In contrast to the Tories, Labour proposed tax changes that would have produced extra funding. For example, as Alec Riley pointed out, tax and top-rate taxpayers would have raised in the region of £100 million. That would have made a difference to local councils on the ground. There is also an important point about the impact that that has on not just local services but local economy. Mr Kelly mentioned tax rises, and he said that £100 million. Mr Riley said that between £17 million and his leader, at one point, he said that it may only raise zero. It may not raise anything at all. The thing that they have been disingenuous about today—maybe Mr Kelly can answer that for me—does he think that it is fair that those earning £11,500 a year should pay extra taxation to pay for Tory austerity? That is not true. Those earning £11,500 wouldn't pay any extra. Do you know that this comes to the nob of this debate? In my 10 years as an MSP, I have watched SNP minister after SNP minister stand up at various question times and said that we could do more about the health service, we could do more about local government, we could do more about education if only we had more powers. Derek Mackay is the finance secretary who has had more power than any finance secretary in the history of devolution because he had tax-raising powers. He had the opportunity to make that difference, to alleviate the cuts that councils are going to have to make, but he didn't do it. As we move to the council elections that Mr Mason mentioned, the SNP, MSPs and those back benches and front benches are going to have to account to the electorate and apologise for the cuts that they are passing down the line. They are going to mean that jobs are lost and services are closed. That is why we will be opposing the order at 5 o'clock tonight. Five minutes, but actually we've got them in hand because you've all been very visible. We'll see how we go on. Well, thank you very much. I'll first declare an interest as a serving councillor in South Lanarkshire. Murdo Fraser kicked off for us by mentioning the Accounts Commission report and also drew reference to Derek Mackay's new look. Comparing him to Clark Kent, from my eyes it's more like it's more proclaimers than Superman. Brian Whittle mentioned cuts in East Ayrshire and also cuts to school meals. Ross Thompson and Mike Rumbles got into a bit of a personal discussion about Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. Well, that's their right. They both represent that area. They both feel it's been hard done to. Elaine Smith talked about the demographic pressures, rightly so, and Andy Wightman touched on a lack of transparency, which, as were both members of the local government committee, he rightly says, our committee picked up on and mentioned in its official report. The background to all this is a local government settlement that, despite the smoke and mirrors used by the finance secretary, sees another year-on-year cut. It's been laid by the Accounts Commission report this week. £260 million real terms cut in revenue grant in one year. 15,000 full-time equivalent jobs lost in local government under the SNP since 2011. Mike Rumbles is wondering why anyone should listen to what the Conservative Party is saying on this when the so-called strong opposition refuses to use their vote to vote this down. A strong opposition? Graham Simpson. We've had the debate about the budget. The budget's gone through. If we're to vote this down, local government won't get any money. Our position is very clear. We're not happy with the amount that local government is getting, but if we devote that down, local government won't get the money. That's the logic of that position. Now, if the settlement is as rosy as Derek Mackay would have us believe, then not a single council in Scotland would be making any cuts. That's the logic of his position, but in fact the reverse is true. They're all making cuts. Maybe they can't add up. Or maybe it's Mr Mackay who sums her out. I'll go for the latter. No, thanks. Cuts, of course, lead to poorer services. The Accounts Commission noted that our streets are getting dirtier. That's one effect of making local government a Cinderella service. As you'd expect, though, some councils cope rather better with the challenges than others. I'm sure we'd all wish to congratulate Conservative-run South Ayrshire Council for what the Accounts Commission says has been considerable progress in delivering improvements and meeting financial challenges as a result of effective political and managerial leadership. That's a direct quote, Mr Mackay, or councils could learn from that. This week on South Ayrshire. On any council you like. I'm curious of the Conservatives' front bench position because we're picking off individual councils and I can pick off the figures of each individual council to talk about the increase in spending power. I'm curious of the official position of the Conservatives. Does Graham Simpson believe that money should be taken away from the central belt and given to Aberdeen in the fashion that Ross Thompson suggested? Graham Simpson. No, no, no. I'm not here to pick off individual councils, Mr Mackay. I'm here to talk about the overall settlement, which is a rum deal for local government overall. This week we've had a UK budget, which sees an extra £350 million coming to Scotland. So perhaps the cabinet saw it, perhaps you could tell me will any of that money be coming to local government, as Mr Mackay has suggested. We didn't really, sorry. Keep getting you mixed up. But what is the answer? Will any of that money come to local government? You have the opportunity to say yes. Perhaps Graham Simpson is now looking for our assistance to help fill the extra time. Can I then ask the Conservatives at what point you've had this conversion for extra support to local government? Considering it was in the public domain that the Conservatives asked were all about essentially tax cuts for the richest in society, at what point has there been this conversion that really what you really wanted from the budget was more money for local government because it wasn't an ask any of the discussions with me? Graham Simpson, if you could conclude your remarks with Simpson. I'll conclude my remarks because he didn't answer the point which I gave him the opportunity to do. So we can assume that no extra money will be coming. We will not be voting against it. That would be irresponsible. Local government does need the extra money. It does need to have a settlement. But we will back the amendment because we agree with every single word of the amendment. Kevin Stewart, to wind up the debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The importance of today's debate cannot be underestimated. The 2017 local government finance order before us today is seeking parliamentary approval to the guaranteed payment of almost £9.3 billion in revenue support to be paid to Scotland's 32 local authorities. To enable them to provide the people of Scotland with the services they need and deserve. We can argue as long as we want about the interpretation of the numbers. But the fact is, as can be seen in the table provided for members at the back of the chamber, that there will be an extra £383 million available to support local services in 2017-18, which is an increase of 3.7 per cent compared to this year. I'll give way to Mr Rowley. I'm grateful for Mr Stewart taking intervention. Can I ask? COSLA has asked the Government in terms of the consequentials of the budget statement yesterday. I think 350 million of which 190 is revenue. COSLA is asking that that money go to health and social care and education. As local government minister, will you be putting pressure on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to get some of that money into health and social care and education? Can I say that we have taken action in social care and education? We have created integrated joint boards to pull budgets together to provide the best possible services for people. We also have the £120 million attainment fund, which many of the opposition parties in this Parliament have voted down or tried to vote down. I would say to Mr Rowley that there will be a huge list of folk asking Mr Mackay what he's going to do with the consequentials. The consequentials themselves sound like manna from heaven, but they are not going to make up for the £2.9 billion cut that Westminster has imposed in this place. I wish there had been more talk of that today than some of the spurious things that have been talked about, because the reality quite simply is that those cuts passed down from Westminster are having a major effect on people's lives here in Scotland. Today's local government finance order seeks agreement to the main allocation of revenue funding to local government for 2017-18 and updates funding allocations for 2016-17. Total funding for 2017-18 amounts to over £10.4 billion. That includes revenue funding of £9.6 billion, of which we are distributing over £9.3 billion in this order. The overall 2017-18 settlement funding package will provide an additional £107 million to support integration of health and social care services. It will assist local authorities in raising attainment and closing the attainment gap by providing attainment for Scotland funding of £170 million. It will maintain the pupil-teacher ratio and it removes the council tax freeze and implements council tax reforms. The Scottish Government has treated local government very fairly despite the cuts to the Scottish budget from the UK government. I will give way to Mr Fraser. On that point, I am grateful to the minister for giving way. According to Fraser of Allander, the Scottish Government's discretionary spend has downed 3.8 per cent in real terms since 2010-11, as the Scottish Government cut the funding to local government in the same period by nearly 10 per cent. How can that possibly be fair? I think that I would dispute some of the figures that Mr Fraser has given, including that we have got a situation of £2.9 billion worth of cuts passed on from your Government. If you were doing your job properly, you would be lobbying the chancellor for much more than the wee bit of consequentials that we are getting out of this budget because it does not compensate for the cuts that have been made to this place. Start standing up for your constituency in Scotland. The local government finance settlement, including the extra £160 million announced on 2 February, plus the other sources of support available through the actual and potential increases in council tax income and the support through health and social care integration would have amounted to a potential overall increase of over £400 million, or 3.9 per cent in cash terms, and £149.7 million, or 2.4 per cent in real terms. Local authorities have now finalised their own budgets, with the exception of Clack Manager, who set their council tax but not their budget, which should include provision for each of the elements included in the package. As a result of that, 11 councils have chosen not to increase their council tax levels by the maximum allowable 3 per cent. That has reduced the overall support for services to £383 million, or 3.7 per cent in cash terms. The figures for 2017-18, presented for approval today, include two significant additions from the provisional distributed figures issued on 15 December. £130 million of revenue, which the Cabinet Secretary announced as stage 1 of the budget bill, and an extra £10 million in respect of the discretionary housing payments, increasing the total support available next year to £52.9 million to mitigate some of the worst excesses of Tory welfare reform. In addition to the 2017-18 allocations, today's order also seeks approval for an extra £51.7 million for 2016-17. Those represent sums either undistributed at the time of the 2016 order, or funding that has become available during the year. Those include £37.5 million to fund the teachers induction scheme, £5 million to support the 1 plus 2 languages policy, £2.4 million to support the council tax reform changes and £1.7 million to provide additional financial support to flooded communities. In summing up, I must take this opportunity to respond to Mr Rumbles' accusations that the Scottish Government is shortchanging Aberdeen City Council through the application of the 85 per cent funding floor. Mr Rumbles talked about voting against the order when he first came to this Parliament against his own Government. That shows the impotence of Mr Rumbles when it came to these issues. The only reason that we have the 85 per cent funding floor anyway is because of the work of the late Brian Adam and other north-east SNP MSPs who lobbied hard to ensure that that floor was put in place. Thanks to Brian Adam for his efforts in this regard and no thanks to Mr Rumbles who was impotent when it came to these issues. I find it extraordinary that he can criticise the Scottish Government over the 85 per cent floor. Since the Scottish Government first introduced the 85 per cent funding floor. Aberdeen has benefited from more than £42.2 million because of that. I encourage the Parliament to support the local government finance order before us in Parliament today to ensure that our local authorities can get on with the delivery of our vital local services without the worry of knowing when and how they will be able to do that. That concludes our debate on the local government finance order. We will now move on to the next item of business. We will just take a moment for our ministers and others to change seats. I will move straight on as time is tightened this debate. The next item of business is a debate on motion 4493 in the name of Rosanna Cunningham in Scotland's biodiversity. Can I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now? The natural environment is worth more than £20 billion per annum to our economy and supports more than £60 billion.