 Mae gwaith yn ymddangos o'r cyfnodau. Ieithio arno, ac yn ddwylliant 7968 yw John Swinney. Mae bwyddiant y ddylch chi'n gwneud yng Nghymru Gwbl yng Nghymru. Felly, cyfnodau hynny, i ddim yn dweud, mae'n siwr meddwl i'r ddechrau bod i'r gwneud yng nghymru o'r blwysig o'r byddai hynny oedd y byddai yn teimlo i gael y bwysig yw'r ddylch chi'n gwneud, i ddweud i'r ddylch chi'n gwneud ynghylch chi'n gwneud i'r dysgu a'r dod, dwi'n dwybodaeth i'r Llanoeddau Bike figured wonneron iawn. Yn hyn, rydyn ni'n gweithio â'r Ynhyggfa Llyfrgell yng Nid G trofiadau yn y Cyfwynster Rhaol, mae ein bryd yn cyfrifawr i'r byw yn ddcymdeithasol yng nid, ac mae y byw yn dweud yn schwyffur ar y ddigwun yddi amsynod i siaradau cymaint â'r drwng. Maen nhw'n bryd i'r lleidau kliwau yn yr yddydd neu drwy iawn, a wnaeth yn bryd i gael boi wrthwynteon i lapai 15-minus cyfrachoholaeth? welcome. As we conclude the 2023-24 Scottish Budget Bill, I have reflectato carefully on theillaith talks that were raised in Parliament and by a range of organisations and recognised the challenges that the financial services faced at this time by individuals, households, businesses in the third sector and the public sector. I'm aware of the challenges that face as we manage our way through the cost crisis and this budget is designed to do as much as possible to assist Does any of that is easy? That is by far the hardest budget process that I have led. With the effects of raging inflation being felt against the impact of more than a decade of austerity and Barnett funding down 5 per cent in real terms since 2021-22. I have been open and transparent with Parliament on the budget challenges we are managing both for this current financial year and for the forthcoming financial year. I indicated to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the 7th of February that the 2022-23 budgetary position continues to improve, and I am now confident of the path to balance for this financial year. This is as a result of careful budget management and taking the hard decisions to live within our means despite the ferocious pressures created by high inflation. I can also report to Parliament two changes to our funding position that enabled me to make some further steps to increase commitments made in the draft budget. The first of those changes is that it has been confirmed by His Majesty's treasury that we will receive £125 million of additional funding as a result of Barnett consequentials arising from the UK supplementary estimates. Secondly, I also expect to receive an additional £21 million for 2324 due to the correction of an error in our UK spending review allocation. I am very grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. Could he just clarify that £125 million additional funding is in the current financial year and will that be carried forward into the coming financial year and the coming budget? Because I have secured a path to balance for this financial year, because of the late arrival of the supplementary estimate figure, I intend to carry that forward into the next financial year. I am about to make funding allocations accordingly as a consequence of the receipt of that finance. Given that I am confident in the financial position for 2223, which is the point that I have just made to Mr Johnson, I am now able to consider some additional financial commitments for next year. I would like to begin by fully recognising the budget challenges that local government faces. In my budget statement in December, I outlined the Government's commitment to work constructively with local government to create an effective partnership to assist in meeting that challenge. I used this debate today to reiterate the Government's willingness to engage in that process and to work with local government to undertake the reform necessary to achieve that aim. Along with that commitment to work together effectively, I am committing to provide local government with an additional £100 million to support local authorities and their expenditure. The funding is designed to assist councils in making a meaningful 2023-24 pay offer for non-teaching staff, recognising the critical role that those staff play in delivering front-line services. I hope that that will enable a swift agreement in the Scottish Joint Council pay negotiations so that relevant staff receive a pay increase as early as possible in 2023-24. I am very grateful to Mr Swinney for giving away. Can he just clarify? Is the money that he has just announced part of or the entirety of the money that was announced last week to fund this increased offer that is already on the table to teachers? The £100 million is additional resources to what was announced last week. I will come on to explain the issues about the announcements that were made last week. Last week we confirmed that we would provide an additional £156 million from Scottish Government funds to support a new pay offer for teachers—£33 million in this financial year plus a further £123 million next year—that would see salaries rise by 11.5 per cent from April. I encourage that proposition to be put to teaching staff for their consideration. The additional funding for 2023-24 is on top of the £570 million increase in funding that has already been included in the local government settlement and takes the total additional funding for next year for local government to £793 million. As a result of the decisions in this budget, the total funding available to councils to support local services will be nearly £13.5 billion plus the revenues from any local decisions on council tax. That is equivalent to a 3 per cent real-terms increase compared to the 2022-23 budget bill. We are providing full discretion over £105 million of funding to allow councils to replace national empty property relief, with, for example, more localised schemes. We will also increase the maximum fee levels that a local authority can charge for a penalty charge notice for parking infringements. That represents a comprehensive support package for local government in this challenging financial settlement. It is welcome that progress has also been made in recent days in the agenda for change pay discussions, and the Government is undertaking further work to put in place a public sector pay policy prior to the start of the new financial year. Of course. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. I am still not very clear, and I am sure other colleagues in the chamber will want to know where is the £156 million that he has mentioned in relation to the pay-over. Where has that money come from? The Deputy First Minister went to Great Lent, not least with my interventions, to make it clear that he did not have any scope from renewability. There was no flexibility. Setting aside what he has said in relation to the additional money that is going to local government, where is the £156 million coming from? I have set out already in my earlier remarks that £33 million is coming from this year. That has been available because I have taken decisions to enable me to balance the financial year this year, which was extremely difficult, and to find, within the budget reductions that I have made and that I have required my colleagues to sign up to free up £33 million this year to put into a teacher's pay deal. That is where the money has come from this financial year, because I have forced my colleagues to take hard decisions. Next year, the Government is allocating from the existing budget provision that we are making a further £123 million to support. Of course, the passing of the budget today is necessary to enable that money to be put on the table, so I hope that there is no mucking about today in not voting in favour of the budget that I am putting in front of Parliament for consideration. Willie Rennie The Deputy First Minister says that there is £100 million extra on top of the £500 that he announced for local government earlier. He knows that those figures are disputed. He must accept that there are going to be significant cuts in local government. Will he accept responsibility for those cuts? That is a direct result of the decisions that he is making in his budget. I think that I have tried to explain to Parliament on countless occasions, and I have explained it face to face to local government as well. The financial comparison that is made is from budget bill to budget bill. From budget bill to budget bill, there is now, as a consequence of the decisions that I have made today, £793 million more available to local government to spend next year than this year. In anybody's book, I think that that must be something to welcome. I hope that that can be welcomed. I know that Mr Rennie and I are in a bit of a role of goodwill just now, so I do hope that he is going to be speaking to endorse what I am saying, although I see Mr Cole Hamilton's lectern that is up, so that makes me worried that the calm voice of Mr Rennie will not be heard in this debate. However, if he wants to intervene on me in my closing speech to welcome my announcement, it says very welcome to do so. I recognise the difficulties that have been faced by our island authorities in managing the cost increases facing their inter-island ferry network due to the effects of inflation and rising fuel prices. That particularly applies in Orkney and Shetland, but to a lesser extent in Argyll and Bute and in Highland. The Government gave a commitment some years ago to fully fund those services, so the second commitment that I make today is that that is a commitment that we will honour. We recognise that there are increased costs and my officials are engaging with the local authorities' concerns specifically on the level of funding that is required, and Parliament will be informed once those decisions have concluded. The third and final announcement that I want to make today is that, in the earlier committee debate on the budget, I acknowledged the call from Clare Adamson MSP, convener of Parliament's Culture and Constitution Committee, to continue to sustain our investment in culture and the arts. The importance of that funding to the wellbeing of our society has always been passionately championed in Parliament by Fiona Hyslop MSP as a long-serving culture secretary in the Scottish Government. We had asked Creative Scotland to sustain investment next year by utilising £6.6 million from its accumulated lottery reserves in place of a further year of additional grant funding to compensate for generally lower, not national lottery income. I am now in a position not to require that, and I will provide an uplift of £6.6 million for Creative Scotland for £23.24 to ensure that its reserve funding can supplement rather than replace grant funding. That means that there is a substantial increase in the Scottish Government funding for culture and major events in the next financial year at a time when our country requires the inspiration that the culture and arts sector can provide for all of us. I have judged that that is the absolute limit of the additional funding that I can provide based on the current financial position. The detail of the budget revisions will be reported to the Parliament as part of the autumn budget revision. Together with our partners in the Scottish Green Party, we offer today a substantial budget package that will help those who need it the most. The budget measures that we bring forward are anchored in three major themes—first, our determination to end child poverty, second, the need to support the transition of our economy to net zero, and third, the requirement for sustainability in our public services. The budget strengthens our social contract with every citizen of Scotland who will continue to enjoy many benefits not available throughout the United Kingdom. Parliament has already passed the Scottish rate resolution setting the tax rates for next year. The Scottish Government has taken the steps that we believe are appropriate to deliver fair and progressive taxation, where we ask those who can afford to contribute more to support investment in our public services to do so. Those principles are reflected in our decision to increase the top and higher rates of taxation by one pence each and to levy a higher rate of tax through the additional dwelling supplement. Those decisions will mean that the majority of people in Scotland will still pay less in taxation than if they lived in the rest of the United Kingdom. Our progressive choices on Scottish income tax mean that this year the Government will deliver record funding of more than £19 billion for the health and social care portfolio, with more than £2 billion of funding for primary care to deliver and improve primary healthcare services in the community. The budget also delivers for businesses. The Government has responded to the biggest ask from business organisations to freeze the non-domestic rates poundage, saving rate payers around £300 million next year. The package secures the lowest poundage in the United Kingdom and supports businesses with a package of reliefs worth around £744 million. Delivering support for people most in need in these difficult times is the foundation of this budget. This Government is doing all we can to support individuals and families, which in turn supports a stronger, more resilient, sustainable economy. The budget commits over £5.2 billion for social security payments to provide support to more than 1 million people in Scotland. That represents an increase of more than £1 billion on last year's budget. That includes £442 million of investment in the Scottish child payment, a key support for eligible families, providing £25 per week, per child and only available in Scotland because of the choices that this Government has made to give a lifeline to families facing difficulty in our country. I thank the First Minister for the intervention. Can he set out how many families received the Scottish child payment before Christmas from the extension of the child payment from over six to 16-year-olds? I do not have that number to hand, but I will endeavour to send that on to Pam Duncan-Glancy. I can say that there are families in this country who are surviving because of the child payment that this Government has put in place. I would love to take an intervention from Christine Grahame. Christine Grahame is not a love match. However, I am shocked that the Tory benches cannot even applaud the child payment that is needed so much because of Tory austerity and outrageous inflation. Cabinet Secretary, I must ask you to draw your remarks. Christine Grahame is a wise and thoughtful Member of Parliament, and I would have thought that she should not be that surprised by the Conservatives' lack of reaction to the news of the Scottish child payment. The decisions in this budget are designed to support those who are facing difficulty, designed to support businesses to make their way through the challenging transition that is required to be made to net zero and to ensure that our public services can meet the needs of the public. Those are difficult decisions in difficult economic times. The budget that has been set out to Parliament enables us to invest in our public services to ensure a strong boost to local authority funding and to ensure that we help those who need it the most. I move the budget and what resolution in my name. I start with my usual generosity of spirit in crediting John Swinney with affording me the opportunity on two different occasions to chat through some issues about the budget process. I also thank him for setting out some additional suggestions and policy commitments this afternoon, more of which I will come to in just a minute. I am particularly interested in the one regarding Creative Scotland, which I think is important, but he should not forget that he is putting back money that he had just taken away. I really do hope that, on the two occasions where I was having conversations with John Swinney, he was at least listening because what I was saying to him was exactly reflected in the views of so many people across Scotland who are very concerned and, in many cases, profoundly in disagreement with the direction of travel of the budget because of the wider implications for the economy. It is interesting to note that, in the substantial number of column inches that has been devoted to the First Minister's resignation last week, a large number of those reflections have been about where Nicola Sturgeon's time in office has left the Scottish economy. Much of that, as well as the conventional statistical analysis that we obviously have from the forecasters, does not make very much of easy reading for John Swinney. I start with what Mr Swinney has said. He has cited recent comments from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that Scotland has the most progressive tax system in the UK. Principally, the fact that the poorest 100 per cent will be 580 pounds better off per year in comparison with their counterparts in other parts of the UK, and that Scotland provides a more generous benefit system. I can just say to Christine Grahame that the Tories did support the child payment. Mr Swinney also points to free prescriptions in Scotland. I wonder if Liz Smith would just clarify the point that she has just made about whether the Conservatives would support the Scottish child payment. Does that mean that the Scottish Conservatives are going to vote for the budget? Unless they vote for the budget, the Scottish child payment will not happen. Mr Swinney can look at the parliamentary record. We did support that child payment. A budget, Mr Swinney, is about far more than just one... We will hear, Ms Smith. Can I go back to the Scottish Government's commitments from Mr Swinney in particular? He continues to make the case about increased child benefits, about free prescriptions and about free university tuition. Unfortunately for Mr Swinney, that is by no means the whole picture. The Institute of Fiscal Studies also refers to the political choice, and it is a political choice that the SNP has made, which means that to fund those policies, the SNP is increasingly reliant upon taxing middle and higher earners much more and widening the differentials between the rest of the UK. Here is an example for the SNP. A young professional, perhaps one of those people in the financial services to whom John Swinney spoke, I have to say very well, just a couple of weeks ago, is up against it from the start, because staying in Scotland, that professional will pay considerably more in land and buildings transaction tax than the equivalent stamp duty in England. A £400,000 flat in Edinburgh would mean paying £10,000 to £20,000 more a year, and those people will be having a minimum of £500, probably near a £1,000 extra in income tax and higher council taxes. Those people matter, because, as Mr Swinney knows only too well, Scotland is in desperate need of more well-paid jobs. Taking that to the next step, presumably Liz Smith will now tell us, if she doesn't think that that is right, will she change that and have a different position and therefore have to cut some of the spending that the Deputy First Minister has just laid out? That has to be the conclusion of her speech, and we look forward to hearing it. Liz Smith, can I just say to Shona Robison, and I said this at stage 1 and I said it at stage 2 again, I'm well aware of the tight finances that we have just now, but one of the fundamental problems that we have in Scotland just now is that we do not have sufficient money to grow the economy because the tax take and the productivity is not reflected sufficiently high to be able to make these. How marvellous would it be one day that this Parliament can actually have lower taxes than other parts of the UK, but at the moment we can't do that. I'm grateful to Liz Smith for giving away for a second time. I'm interested in her economic thinking here, because I think the quickest way to grow an economy is to grow population, and that would be helped if we had a more sympathetic migration regime. Just now, every sector that I speak to in the business community complains about the lack of people because of the restrictions of Brexit. When are the Conservatives going to sober up and recognise that migration is the problem that is undermining economic growth in our society? Mr Swinney and I have had this debate before. He knows my own views on Brexit, but can we get to the absolute nub of this? Can I go back to some committee comments? In fact, I think I have them right here. At stage 2, Mr Swinney said that there were three things that he felt needed to happen. The first was—I don't disagree with any of these three things—that he said that there had to be a development of entrepreneurship. That's right. He also said that when it came to the necessity of productive regional developments in the economies, that that was very important to growth. I question why it is, Mr Swinney. I refer to a speech that was made by Richard Lochhead on 7 February, who completely rejected any of the levelling up fund because he felt that it wasn't doing Scotland any good. That levelling up fund is there precisely because it is trying to help regional economies. He should perhaps ask himself why it is that so many of his colleagues in the local government are so keen to get their hands on levelling up. The third thing that he said was that it was vital to get to the situation of economic inactivity and improving some of that. Those are the three things that Mr Swinney said himself. None of that is going to happen unless we are able to grow the economy. What I'm asking you to do is to look at the other side of the economy. Yes, it's absolutely the right thing when it comes to helping people who are vulnerable, but we have to make sure that we are also helping those who are at the very productive end of Scotland and who want to come and live and work and invest in Scotland because that is as important as looking after our vulnerable communities. I think that we also have to ask about some of the infrastructure commitments, too. Mr Swinney said that by 2030 there would be £8 billion extra as a result of the national strategy for economic transformation. I ask him to consider whether that will happen if major infrastructure projects such as dualling the A9 are so critical to improving road safety for all the reasons that so many MSPs, Murdo Fraser and Fergus Ewing, was prominent amongst them, because that is essential to growth and productivity as well. Liz Smith, for giving way. It's a theme that I've often questioned about. In terms of additional and what I would regard as proper capital borrowing powers, is she today willing to support my call for that because we all agree that infrastructure projects are fundamental to growth and economy? Liz Smith. Michelle Thomson knows my own views on that, that there are discussions to be had, but if it's capital borrowing just for the sake of expanding that capital borrowing, no, I don't agree with that, but there are circumstances where I think we have to look at the arrangements within the fiscal framework and that's obviously up for negotiation fairly shortly. Can I come to the issue of what we argued very fervently and continue to argue when it comes to the national care commission proposal? There are now four committees in this Parliament that have taken evidence on this basis and it is very difficult indeed to find any stakeholders whatsoever who are in favour of this proposal. We ask again, even at this very late stage, that that money could be reallocated to the front line of local government because they're at the front of delivering health and social care in any case because I really don't see where the credibility is in this proposal given that so many people are saying that it is unworkable. That's an issue that I think has got cross-party support and I think, as I say, even at this late stage then the deputy First Minister should be considering that. We also welcomed the announcement that the Scottish Government is freezing non-domestic business rates and we also noted as a result of the measures announced by the chancellor to reduce the rates burden on business, there was 222 million of Barnett consequentials available, which should have gone to the 75 per cent rates relief package that is available elsewhere, but Mr Swinney told me that that cost an extra £154 million, which he doesn't have, but he would have had that and should have had that if there had been a whole lot of extra money available from the SNP over quite some period of time, let's be honest, had it not been wasted on vast sums of taxpayers' money on failed government projects. Can I close in the fact that I think that Mr Swinney was right when he expressed his frustrations at the difficulties forced upon him by the UK mini-budget last September, accompanying all the other difficulties. He described that, if I recall, as the height of incompetency, but can I take him much closer to home when he declares that this budget predicament has been caused by Westminster, because that is just not true. Yes, this budget was going to be difficult and tough, but many of the current budgetary problems that have been made right here in Scotland by a Government that has for months, if not years, been well out of touch with public opinion when it comes to the economy. We've been away for a week. Has much changed since a week last Thursday? I see that the First Minister has already left in terms of this debate. Last week has not just been a long-time politics. It makes this budget decision faintly ridiculous, because this is not a budget that will last. I don't see any of the leadership candidates once elected leaving the budget well alone. It will last as long as the next summer budget revision, because we already have leadership candidates saying what they would do differently. We had one candidate that said in my speech here that denouncing cuts being made to Creative Scotland. Rather than that, I think that I should just congratulate Ash Denham on her first victory of her leadership campaign. Indeed, we have another. I'm viciously pronouncing the need for more social prescribing, presumably to be delivered through local government. I'm guessing that we'd need more funding. Of course, in the last 24-hour period it's become very unfashionable to agree with Kate Forbes, but let me agree with her on this. This Government does need to focus on what really matters people—the NHS and the cost of living—and therein lies the problem. I do not think that the blame for that lack of focus lies simply with this budget or the Deputy First Minister, because the issues that we face are an accumulation of decisions over 15 budgets, three of which Ms Forbes set herself. At the heart of those decisions lies the lack of detail and transparency. Now I welcome the additional funds for teachers' pay, but when we make proposals, the obvious questions come forward about where the money comes from and what will be cut in order to afford it. The reality is that the only place that those budget changes are written down is in the official report yet to be written. I would ask the specific questions. Will the £100 million fund the 2.5 per cent increase for non-teaching staff that is being funded by the other money elsewhere? Given Mr Swinney's protestations, would he acknowledge the IFS analysis that shows that non-ring-fenced funding for local government has declined in this budget by 2 per cent? If he does, where does that leave that decline after this budget revision? Is it 1 per cent? I think that that is roughly where it would be. Ultimately, budgets and this budget process will only work if we have details and transparency. We were told that Derek's magic money so far was a thing of the past, and yet suddenly we have this announcement with no detail and no real ability to scrutinise. Emma Roddick. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention and firstly I suggest that if he wants to have a say in the SNP leadership contest he should join this party, but secondly the reason that these decisions have had to be made so late is because this government can't count on the money that's coming from the UK government, so would he maybe support our calls for greater fiscal flexibility here? Daniel Johnson. Well the government can't count, we have it there. No, budgets rely on transparency and this is just one example of the lack of transparency. We don't have the detail in terms of what is discretionary funding, what is demand led, what is to be paid or spent on people, what is even to be spent on energy bills. We don't have that clarity. If you want serious discussion negotiation we need greater transparency, but indeed John Swinney in truth today has been asked to perform an invidious task to pass a budget that will almost certainly not last and one that is being asked to deal with the consequences of decisions being made by other people and indeed in all seriousness I'd like to thank him for his engagement through this process because while we do not agree on the specifics on this budget I think there is agreement about the broader need for strategic choices and I do accept the huge pressures being faced by the government in setting budgets at a time when cost are spiralling and negotiations regarding pay are complex, but this budget did need to fix social pay. The front door of the NHS is blocked because the back door is shut. We cannot get well people home for want of social care workers, but this budget does nothing to fix that issue because I know that ultimately John Swinney agrees with that analysis about the problem with the NHS and this budget does nothing to stop the long-term decline in local services undermined by over a decade of cuts squeezes in central government dictates. I suspect that he also agrees with the need of much more fundamental and urgent reform about how we deliver those vital local services services which ultimately will impact on our ability to deliver social care. I make no apology for our focus on social care pay through this budget process. It is right for those workers who do an invaluable job that they get wages that reflect that. It is an immediate issue for the NHS but it is not a new issue and that is why it needed to be fixed. Our proposals were costed, they were sourced and they were affordable, but more importantly at a time when delayed discharges costing the NHS £150 million a year it is vital for preventing catastrophe in our valued NHS but instead this Government is offering just 40 pence additional anara. Less than the 50 pence offered in last year's budget at a time when inflation is running at almost three times the 3.8 per cent that this increase represents and yet what they do do is continue with their flawed plan for a national care service. Apparently 65 million is what will be spent in this budget not that we would know from the details actually in the budget. 65 million spent on plans and centralisation rather than delivering care so even if you don't accept our plans 65 million what would that deliver it would take social care workers pay to over 11 pounds an hour so don't take our plans at least change yours do something that puts money into the pocket pockets of social care workers but this budget will simply make the problems the recruitment retention of social care workers worse and the crisis in the NHS deeper but the issue of pay is not restricted to care on the NHS it is emblematic of this Government's ability to deal with strategic issues because low pay is endemic in the public sector there are almost 300 000 public sector workers in Scotland earning less than £15 an hour there are around 20 000 people in the public sector earning less than the real living wage and I would simply say this you cannot build public services on low pay and when the public sector is close to half the economy this impacts on the overall health of our economy wage and employment growth are critical to our public finances so we need a strategic workforce plan that plans for jobs and wages in the public sector manages capacity and capabilities that we need in our public sector workforce that is why scott audits scotland's called for a strategic workforce plan but this budget does nothing it does not even have a public sector pay policy happy to you i'm very grateful to daniel johnson for taking my intervention in the subject of public sector pay does he agree with me that an 11.3 increase over two years for our hardworking teaching staff has brought about by great fanfare from the deputy first minister actually i might saw real terms cut both last year over this coming year and the year preceding us and actually it's derisory and a slap in our face for our hardworking teachers who are having to accept this pay cut in the teeth of the aftermath of covid daniel johnson i welcome mr call hamilton's intervention and indeed over the last decade teachers real terms pay has come under severe pressure so we need to look very closely at the realities of this and the real terms uh uh numbers that these represent so ultimately what does this of this budget say and what does it speak to and what does it actually say about the not just this last year but over the 15 years of the s&p in eight years of nicola sturgeon because this budget is the sum of this party and her time in office and how will it be remembered well probably ferries but not just the hulks that lie unfinished that will cost hundreds of millions more than budgeted but each of the ferries that should have been launched every year for the last 10 years to replace the fleet in a timely manner because this year alone we've seen two ferries withdrawn because of rust rust leaving islanders high and dry because this government can't make the decisions and the long-term planning needs to maintain islanders and their connectivity perhaps 1140 hours would be the first minister's most significant achievement but even that is a half formed policy because the number of people working and while number of people working in local authority settings is up the overall numbers working in childcare is down we've lost almost a quarter of childminders and the total number of settings has fallen so childcare is vitally important but this good objective has been undermined by poor policy and poor funding and when we look at local government we see the real damage caused by this government more and more funding tied up by Scottish Scottish Government direction and ring fing and saying because the claims this budget amounts to a cut when these things are excluded indeed the IFS agrees with them but when you look below the headline numbers the results are even more alarming the long-term erosion to basic services is stark planning and development budgets have been halved in the last 10 years road budgets cut by a third culture by a third and housing by almost 40 per cent housing that is so vital for delivering against poverty for developing regional economies and for enabling us to achieve net zero and no wonder shelter been processing outside this lunchtime so i would set one challenge to the leadership contest they're right to pick holes at the focus and direction of this government but i challenge them if they're serious about change vote with us against this budget because it's only by real change them that we will deliver the change that Scotland needs and Labour is serious in delivering. I know call on Alex Cole Hamilton. Thank you very much. Before I start can I remind the chamber of my interest that I'm married to a teacher who is a member of the EIS trade union. We've been straight with the Deputy First Minister throughout the budget process and I am grateful as Liz Smith was for the access he's given us but we approached those discussions in good faith. I deployed the legendary good will of Willie Rennie at stage one in these debates but if the budget package was right we would support it we stood by that. We have voted for previous budgets and voted this year for the income tax resolution. In our meetings I was very clear with the Deputy First Minister about the different choices that we as Liberal Democrats would make. I talk constructively about the issues that we care about. Now I think it's only right I do give credit to the one issue that the government seem to have heeded us on but it is just the one issue and that is in particular the commitments of ferry funding in our island communities. When I met with Shetland Island council just a couple of weeks ago they pointed out that the actual increased costs of running their ageing fleet have gone up by £5 million so I don't doubt the magnitude of the ask and I hope that the government won't cut short that quantum but the government hasn't budgeted to the degree they needed to win our full support in this. This budget is just not good enough. There are decisions that we cannot look past and that is a matter of some regret. It is essential to step up the efforts to resolve the crisis in our social care sector. That would relieve delayed discharges and some of the pressure disruption and cost being heaped upon the national health service. Despite the evidence and reports of multiple committees of this parliament, local government, trade unions, charities, front line workers, the national care service bill has still not yet been abandoned. This budget was an opportunity to pull forward national bargaining and deliver fair work years ahead of the SNP and Greens current schedule. The budget was an opportunity to put money into front line services and staff instead of putting a significant deposit down on a vast and unnecessary billion pound bureaucracy. I was pleased to see that at least one of the SNP leadership contenders has recognised that the bill must be halted. I suspect that others in the SNP quietly agree with them. When the NHS recovery plan was launched, one in five children were waiting too long for mental health children. That is now one in three. Young people are still battling with the long shadow of lockdown. The rising cost of living is but adding to their pressure. To freeze the mental health budget on top of the £38 million cut this year is a receipt for more missed targets and scandalous long waits. That is the Government that promised to clear mental health waiting lists for children by March. That is next week. We are nowhere. I am still disappointed that, throughout the 158 pages of the draft budget, there was not one word on long Covid, nor was there anything on long Covid in the Deputy First Minister's remarks. Almost 200,000 people are suffering the stabilitating condition, and the country is suffering too. We have a downturn, low productivity and labour shortages. Scotland needs the talents of everyone to grow the economy and to make our country fairer. We have uncovered that the Government is turning down requests from health boards for more money to help with long Covid. Cash that could have been helped to get people well and get on with life. Turning to education, there can be few more pressing issues than that of the school gates being locked because of strike action. It is the last thing that our teachers want to do, but the Government has left them no other choice. School pupils have already lost 2.1 million days of education during this dispute alone. That is on top of the huge disruption caused to them in two years of pandemic lockdowns. That will double if an agreement is not reached all the while, while life-qualifying exams come over the horizon. I mentioned in my intervention to Mr Johnson that the Government announced—for the Deputy First Minister announced with some fanfare—the increase in budget to a life for an 11.3 per cent increase over two years. I need not remind you that inflation is a year-on-year event. If it is 14 per cent this year and 14 per cent last year, then 11.3 per cent over two years is asking our teachers to take a significant pay cut last year and a much bigger pay cut next year. It just will not wash. To get Scottish education back on track, we need to get the basics right. That means boosting paying conditions for staff, permanent contracts, more time for lesson planning, cutting class sizes so that pupils get the support that they deserve. Instead, we still have a Government spending £17 million on national testing every year for children as young as four and five. We have a budget that school leaders Scotland say will lead to class sizes increasing and subjects being removed from the curriculum. The announcement of fortnight ago of a fresh regime of penalties further undermines local government. The education secretary is treating councils like the enemy who are determined to cut teacher numbers. That is nobody's wish. The way to protect teacher numbers is to properly resource our local government and education departments. The IFS said that, even if the council tax is increased by five per cent, local authorities will still face significant real-term cuts to their budget, even with the extra £100 billion that is announced today. My colleague Willie Rennie was exactly right when he intervened on the Deputy First Minister to say that the maths being used under pinning all of this by the Government are disputed by COSLA and they are still staring down the barrel of some pretty significant cuts. The fresh ring-fencing regime means that even deeper cuts to housing, libraries, leisure centres, roads and waste. Frankly, I am surprised that the Green Party has gone along with that. That is a party that shared our belief in the European Charter for local self-government. It is a charter that says that political and financial independence of local authorities must always be upheld. We agreed with the Greens that priorities and policies must be developed and delivered in partnership, and we were told that this Government would value the unique role of local government. Finally, I want to say a word about capital spending. There is nothing in this budget that is moving us or moving the debate on further in terms of the urgent programme of public works that we need to see to insulate every home in Scotland. A £10 million actuary in the year is not going to cut the mustard. In the face of a climate emergency and surging costs of living, we need to insulate our homes in Scotland to help our people. We now move to the open debate. I call for Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Douglas Lumsden for around six minutes instead of him. Each year, finance secretaries are responsible for making the difficult decisions governing requires. Since the SNP to office in 2007, fiscal challenges to contend with included the financial crash, austerity and Covid requiring careful husbandry to protect public services and deliver prosperity. However, the scale of the challenge is now even greater. Pandemic recovery, warring Ukraine and volatile energy prices exacerbated by UK failure to retain adequate gas storage facilities, Brexit and vicious Tory fratricide at Westminster are put a match to the finances and credibility of UK PLC with predictable knock-on consequences for this Parliament's budget. In this context, Professor Francis Rune of the Economic and Social Research Institute told the finance committee that it is the responsibility of government to provide as much certainty as it can to businesses and households. The budget delivers that. The Scottish Government is forgoing £308 million in revenue to freeze the business rates poundage, while ensuring 100,000 businesses paying no rates at all, keeping the shutters up on shops and staff in work. All Scottish benefits were abrated in line with consumer price index inflation. The SNP Government introduced the Scottish child payment unique to the islands. Initially, £10 a week has increased by 150 per cent to £25 in a year and will lift 50,000 children out of poverty, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation described as, I quote, a watershed moment for tackling poverty in Scotland that the rest of the UK should take notice of. Labour suggested only a ffiver per child four years ago. Finding decent employment and career progression remains the best way to improve household finances and wellbeing. I am therefore pleased that the cabinet secretary has committed £69.7 million to the parental employability support fund, providing intensive personalised support for parents to gain work, up-skill, retrain, increase family income and lift themselves out of poverty. The thumping increase of £1,117.7 million in health and social care spending is also welcome, as is £100 million extra for our councils. Opposition parties also have opportunities throughout the budget process to set out a vision, not an unfunded wish list, but a serious thought-out, costed and balanced budget, detailing their very own difficult choices to at least pretend to be an alternative Government in waiting but we don't see it. Astonishingly, at stage 1, Miles Briggs talked about housing shortages and homelessness without, at any point, acknowledging UK Tory cuts of 9.8 per cent this year to our capital budget, almost half a billion pounds, with a further £185 million next year at the time of rocketing construction inflation, that takes some brass neck. Much as the Tory's bluster and deflect UK financial care has impacted Scotland's budget and waterfars, it's been. Three Prime Ministers in three months, managerial turnover, one might say, a football club battling relegation. I'm in a budget that removed the offers for tax simplification, the Catlin Bankers bonuses, and brought the entire UK economy to the brink of meltdown, scrabbling to find billions to shore up public finances and avoid a collapse in pension funds. Policy stories in this chamber demanded the SNP emulate. I was hoping to give way to Miles Briggs, but I'll take you. I'm always delighted that Mr Gibson is having an intervention. I'm afraid his narrative is somewhat out of date. I don't know if he's checked the news today, but last month the UK public finances were £5.4 billion in surplus. The UK economy is doing much better than the doom and gloom being predicted by Mr Gibson and his colleagues on those benches. From Mr Fraser, what we have is a national debt across the UK of £2.6 trillion, £91,000 per UK household. Debt interest payments alone will be £116 billion this year since his office for budget responsibility. I figure five times Scotland's entire public sector pay bill. Sadly, the party that brought us trust and quarting doesn't have the humility to admit it was wrong and is moving swiftly on. From Labour, it's the same old, same old, attempt to entwine all things to all people. Increasing hourly social care pay to £12 would cost £275 million. I set out in correspondence to the finance committee excluding millions more required for social care workers employed by local authorities. Since early 2021, Labour has demanded we aim for £15 an hour. I figure not increased by inflation since incidentally. That's on top of hundreds of millions of pounds of demands such as having rail fares and more money for councils without saying how much more. As always, Labour offers no credit while sourcing us to where the money should come from. Indeed, it once favoured 3 per cent annual top-slicing of all council budgets. Daniel Johnson suggested that stage 1 at £95 million would be transferred from the national care service. However, as the DFM made clear, only a maximum of £50 million is committed to the NCS next year. Another £100 million from Labour would come from somewhere in the NHS, apparently. Throwing a bone to the future, the old Mr Johnson suggested scrapping the council tax and non-domestic rates and replacing them with fairer and more progressive levies that could raise as much as £450 million. However, what are those new levies? Who would pay? This is uncosted fantasy politics. Scotland sees through it. In Wales, Labour rightly blamed Westminster cuts, but in Scotland they are blind to Tory failings. In all four stage 1 Labour speeches and again today, there is not a single word, not one, from Labour criticising the Tories. It seems obvious that Labour's Holyrood ambition is for a Labour Tory Lib Dem Coalition, like we already see de facto in Edinburgh City and five councils. Meanwhile, the SNP delivers on taking off as social care waters were paid am measly £5.35 an hour, and a year Labour tried to hand back £1.5 billion to Westminster. Today's budget sees £100 million of investment to bring the early wage to 1090, 104 per cent increase in carers pay over 16 years, almost twice inflation. Where it could act, what did Labour do? In Glasgow City Council, Labour's big decision was which law firm to give £3 million of city funding to deny for years equal pay, pay female care workers deserved, a matter the SNP put right. This year's budget necessitated a hard choice to help people through difficult times, combat and chill poverty, predicting public services, meeting net zero ambitions. Sadly, this challenging year is not a blip. We will be here again next year and beyond as long as this Parliament remains hitched to Westminster and as long as we cut ourselves off from our European partners, we will be locked into a slow decline that Scotland's people don't deserve. We should bid farewell to Westminster carers, set an independent course that can realise Scotland's fuel potential, support the budget. Thank you, Mr Gibson. I'll go with Lumsden to be followed by Michelle Thompson. Well, thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, this does feel a bit like Groundhog Day, although in the film, Phil predicted six more weeks of winter in Scotland, we face three years more of doom and gloom under this SNP-green devolved government. Extra money for local government at the last minute from the Derek Mackay sofa, once again, just like Groundhog Day. Higher taxes reduce local government spending, lack of support for business and no focus on economic growth, paint a dismal and bleak picture for the economic prosperity of Scotland over the next couple of years, regardless of who the new leader is. I want to concentrate on the crisis that is facing our colleagues in local government, regardless of what the Deputy First Minister says today. It is a crisis. I've been in local government and now Scottish Parliament for six years, and budget time is always one of the most depressing of times. We have the Scottish Government telling us how great the local government settlement is, and we have local government setting the record straight, and then some last-minute cash, just like we've seen today. It's hardly a case of partnership working, and this year is no different. I will give way. I thank the member for giving way. Is he going to tell us that money should come from the NHS to go to local government, or would he like to raise taxes more? No, I'm going to tell him that money should come from the national care service. The Deputy First Minister was quoted as saying, we are providing councils with a real-term budget increase of 1.3 per cent next year. It's now being revised upwards to 3 per cent. It sounds great until you look at the details. Of the extra cash, most of this is for the pay settlement. £104 million, £105 million is for the devolution of empty property business rates, so not new money, just an accounting exercise that has moved this from a central government spend to a local government spend. Other cash for the Scottish Government political priorities, and then as Cosla have said, we believe that local government will see an uplift of only £71 million once policy commitments are taken into account. That is far below the levels that are required to ensure that service continues at the current levels. £71 million, and I don't see that changing after the Deputy First Minister's intervention today. I'm grateful to the member for giving way. I wonder if, just in his analysis, he would remember that, during his time as one of the leaders in Aberdeen City Council, he left the council with debt of £2 million that the people of Aberdeen are still paying off. As I recall, that was for projects that still many of which still have to be delivered. Douglas Lumsden, I can give you the time back. I feel the lead of a council of ambition, unlike the SNP Lib Dem coalition that is in place just now. Forget about the nonsense of real-time budget increase, this budget is a cut to local government funding when these extra commitments are factored in. Cosla has made a series of statements over the last few months with dire warrants over the future of services within our local communities. They have described the budget settlement as having a detrimental impact on vital local services. We have heard a lot about legacy over the past week. Well, that is some legacy, cuts to local services to the detriment of our communities. We know that many local authorities are planning for significant job losses as the result of this cut to their budget. Up to 7,000 jobs are according to the Cosla report, should this budget be passed today. Many of those will be in education, which we know to be in crisis. Yet the Scottish Government has now come in with threats and intimidation. Rather than funding councils properly, they are threatening to withhold funding for any that do not tow the line. Can you imagine the outcry of the UK Government imposed as much conditions that this Government imposes on the local government budget? This is shocking behaviour from this Government. Instead of valuing and working with our local government friends, they threaten and intimidate. Instead of meeting them and discussing a way forward, Cosla leaders have been faced with a blank wall with ministers refusing to meet with leaders turning their backs on local government. I welcome the U-turn of the Creative Scotland funding today, and I hope that they recognise the value in culture. I did not hear anything about men's sheds. S&P members have signed their bill condemning cuts to the men's shed budget, and yet today they will vote to cut that funding. We always get warm words from the S&P colleagues, but when push comes to shove, they will fall in line and vote for those appalling measures. This budget does not plan for growth, it plans for decline. Decline in our public services, decline in our local councils, decline in our communities, towns and villages, decline in the money in the pockets of hard work in Scots, and yet they continue to pursue policies that everyone thinks are a bad idea—the national care service being the prime example. I can only hope that the new First Minister swiftly puts a stop to that policy and diverts the money to local authorities. I welcome Ashraegans comments in the press today that she would press pause the roll-out so that we can have a proper co-design process. Trade unions can see it, even the S&P backbenchers see it. The national care service is a disaster waiting to happen, and it will be the Scottish taxpayer that will have to pick up the tab. Delay in this vanity project until we have a new First Minister is surely the most sensible approach. I once again appeal to the Deputy First Minister to reconsider, even at this late stage, that he should meet with council leaders to discuss the concerns first-hand. Listen to what the impact of the appalling cuts that their finances will mean for the essential services within our communities, the impact on early prevention and detection, the impact on social care, education, school build programmes, refuse collection, community funding, men's sheds, music tuition in schools, reallocate the money that is set aside for the national care service, plan for growth, reinstate the cuts to the men's sheds and give local authorities the money that they need to continue to deliver their vital services that we all rely on. I can advise the chamber that we have a little bit of time in hand. I think that most speakers so far have taken interventions. I would encourage them to continue to do so, but discourage people making sedentary interventions and hurling abuse around the chamber. That goes for those sitting on all benches. At this point, I call Michelle Thompson to be followed by Sarah Boyack around six minutes. The Scottish Government and the Acting Finance Secretary in particular have faced huge challenges with the budget and have acted in the interests of the majority of the Scottish people. Balancing that needs to be done is very difficult. I am fully supportive in the budget bill. High inflation, a lack of borrowing powers and a decades-long failure by successive UK Governments to address the issues of economic growth, I think that the Acting Finance Secretary has done a remarkable job in constructing a budget that protects Scotland from some of the worst potential effects of a declining UK. If I can, I just wanted to take an opportunity to address a regular theme of mine, not directly relevant to today's budget, but in the wider picture. That is a need to do much more to support women entrepreneurship to drive economic growth and social equality. I have in both the finance and the economy committees regularly called for better data collection analysis and a recognition of the many cultural barriers to participation. We really need to remove all the barriers to women entrepreneurship, so I was delighted that yesterday the report of Anna Stewart and Mark Logan entitled Pathways, a new approach for women entrepreneurship, was published. It is an excellent report. I also want to congratulate Kate Forbes, whose initiative it was as Cabinet Secretary and her appointment of Anna Stewart to lead the inquiry. The 31 recommendations, in my opinion, all deserve support. Some of the historic barriers to women, which I myself experienced such as the misogynistic belief that having a young family should constrain the ambitions of women but not men, are directly addressed, including the calls for various education initiatives. I would note that the recommendations cross over different portfolio areas and will require significant responses from a wide range of institutions, including from Scottish Enterprise Council's primary schools to universities. What is proposed is welcome, but the institutional challenges will be very real and must be faced, and so any incoming First Minister or indeed the acting finance minister will need to ensure appropriate ministerial oversight of the reports for implementation. The success of creating more women entrepreneurs will undoubtedly, and this is my key point, help our economic growth and therefore will help sustain Government finances, but it needs the wholehearted support of all branches of Government to both implement and monitor the recommendations. Yes, of course. I agree with what Michelle Thomson is saying about entrepreneurship. She spoke very eloquently in the debate that we had about women in science. Can I just ask her what her reflections are on the recent report that has come out from Mark Priestley, which is suggesting in schools that, because of the squeeze on subject choice, that is going to be a real problem in trying to inspire more young women into some of those areas? I think that this came out in that debate, the challenges of continuing to encourage young women, particularly both to go into STEM and stay in STEM, remain fairly acute, and it is something that will need to keep being focused on in my opinion. If the Stuart report is a cause for cautious optimism, we know the state of the UK economy is not. We have heard it quoted before. It is expected to be the worst performing state economic amongst the G7, the G20 and worse than even sanctions hit Russia. UK economic growth lag behind the average for large and small advanced economies over the last four decades. Small advanced economies experienced cumulative economic growth that was double that of the UK between 1999 and 2019. Those are all facts that cannot be chased away, measured by GDP per head. By 2019, the gap between the small economy average and the UK has grown to more than £12,700 a person. I would squarely point out again for the record that those fiscal powers for this type of economic growth reside squarely with the UK Government. In this context, the efforts of the acting finance secretary should be applauded. I have also talked before about the ways in which the evolution settlement ties his hands in multiple ways. We referenced earlier, and I thank Ms Smith for taking my intervention vis-à-vis restriction on borrowing powers, and I agree that the terms of reference for the fiscal framework may look at this again, but it is taken, if you do not mind me saying, a very long time. I, frankly, do not think that the Scottish Tories need to be told what to think by the London Tories in calling for increased targeted capital revenue powers, raising powers. At the same time, we have to acknowledge the UK Government's hell-bent and furthering legislation that is a direct threat to the limited economic powers that we have. We need full fiscal freedom to act in Scotland's interests. This is about growth, this is about job creation, this is about wealth creation and is utterly vital. Last point, I would make. We have hardly mentioned it today, but Brexit. We have to abandon the little Englander mentality in favour of re-engaging fully with Europe and the wider world. Every day, Brexit damages the lives of Scotland, putting barriers in the way of Europe and destroying supply chains. That is damaging the prospects for economic growth and places an added burden in a multitude of ways on Scotland's finances. Scotland needs full borrowing powers, it needs a complete range of fiscal powers and a reinvigorated international outlook. I think that we could call that independence. I am now called Sarah Boyack to be followed by John Mason for around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I refer members to my register of interests. This budget will not address the cost of living crisis that our constituents are having to deal with and the aftermath of the Tories' trashing our budget, trashing our country's economy and the cumulative impact of funding cuts to our councils over the last decade, which has hit our communities hard. Even SNP councillors, who are leaders, are admitting that this year. I want to highlight the damage that this budget will do to my constituents in Edinburgh and the Lothians. In the Lothians, we have seen waiting times for our accident emergency, for cancer services and for operations rising. We have seen our health services under pressures for years. NRAC means that we do not see the funding for services to address the pressures in our region. Because our health services are already at capacity, we urgently need new investment to ensure that the increasing population that we have in our region will be supported, because we will have 84 per cent of Scotland's projected growth by 2030. We need that investment now. New buildings such as iPavillion are vital, but it is also about investing in GP services to support patients not cuts. It is also about ensuring that we have NHS dentists. Earlier this year, dentists warned that there could be a wholesale exodus of dentists from the profession, so there is a serious risk that dental treatments will only be available to those who can afford it, and that is not acceptable. We urgently need action to deliver care. That has been mentioned already by several people. People need the care and dignity that they need in the place that is best for them, whether that is at home or in a home. That means funding. It is time for the SNP green government to admit failure and stop their centralising national care service, which does not just cost a huge amount of money—£1.3 billion—but it does not deliver the additional carers that we need. It will not see them being paid £15 an hour, and crucially it does not give them new career opportunities that we need to keep people in that vital sector. As Daniel Johnson said, the failure to deliver care for people when they need it is hitting our NHS as hard because people are stuck in hospital, which is not good for them and their health, and it is also limiting access to NHS services. That budget does not address that issue. We have also seen the impact of the failure to invest in housing. Earlier this month, I met with Shelter and they painted a grim picture of the housing emergency that we are facing in Scotland and Edinburgh in particular. If you would like to comment on Edinburgh's housing crisis, I would be delighted to take your intervention. Thank you very much, Sarah Boyack, for taking an intervention. I cannot really comment on Edinburgh because I am a south Scotland region MSP. I am interested to hear about what she thinks about the impact of Brexit on carers that are needed in our caring communities across the whole of Scotland, including in their own area in Edinburgh. We have a shortage of care workers across Scotland, but you look at the housing crisis in Edinburgh and at their rocketing rents, at the cost of people who want to buy a home, it is impossible, and people have to leave the city and move further out into the region. The basic cost of living crisis is fundamental. That is why not delivering £15 an hour is not going to help our care service recover, so we need urgent action, and it is not in this budget. The £133 million cuts that are invested into energy-efficient homes announced in November is appalling. During a cost of living crisis, when people's bills are rocketing and we need radical action to address the climate crisis, it defies belief. So, a little bit of good news in the budget. I want to note today's U-turn and what would have been the biggest percentage cut to the budget in the culture area. It would have put a quarter of the regularly funded organisations by Creative Scotland directly at risk. I want to thank the 15,000 people who signed a petition organised by the STUC in the culture unions to warn about the irreversible damage that this proposal would have had, which could have put 8,500 jobs totally on the line at risk. That is on top of the fact that Scottish contemporary art network members surveyed last year and said that a quarter of them have already left the sector or have been forced to seek additional work. Today's crisis, as we see, is a result of a decade of standstill funding for culture. I am delighted to see the culture minister listening to me very intently. Let's just look at it. The funding for our five national performing companies has been £22 million since 2016-17. That is a freeze of investment and we need more opportunities for our young people. We have already lost cultural organisations and the impact of defunding our arts has been felt right across the country. Over the last year, we have lost Edinburgh's film house, the Belmont and Aberdeen, the Inverness ironworks, which was a beacon of live music and is going to be demolished to wait for a £30 million atel. We can already see our arts and culture organisations under huge pressure. As the Edinburgh sculpture watcher said, if we have reductions, it will wreak havoc, but it will not reap significant savings. That is the challenge. On top of a decade of cuts to our councils, we have that cost of living crisis and we have rocketing costs. In Edinburgh, our king's theatre urgently needs investment to make it fit for purpose. It is a national treasure with a huge economic impact and it is a key part of our cultural offer in our international festival, but the cost of living crisis has poached up costs, so that means we urgently need funding from every level of government, our city council, the Scottish Government and the UK Government. Culture is who we are. It is critical to our health and wellbeing, our economy and tourism, and there is so much more that needs to be done to support our councils and our cultural organisations. Daniel Johnson mentioned social prescribing. It is an excellent idea. It works. We know that from the research, but our health minister, Humza Yousaf, told our culture committee that you will have to wait until 2026. That is not good enough. This budget does not address the perfect storm. We need a recovery plan for our arts and culture sector. It is not in this budget, and we need that action now. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am happy to speak again at this stage of the budget process. I may repeat some more themes to some of my previous speeches, and I am sure that Murdo Fraser will be quick to pick me up if I have said something before. So let's start with the economic backdrop. The IMF has predicted that the UK will be the only major economy to shrink in 2023. Now we can blame Covid or Brexit or whatever, but clearly, we have had a succession of incompetent Westminster Governments, both Labour and Conservative, who have failed to keep up with our European neighbours. Oh, absolutely, yes. Murdo Fraser. I am very grateful to Mr Mason for giving way. If the supposed lack of growth in the UK economy is a sign of incompetence, what does he put down to the fact that the Scottish economy has, since 2014, grown at only one half of the UK average rate? Who is responsible for that, Mr Mason? I would still say that it was Westminster's responsible primarily for the economy, and in fact Scotland compares with most of the UK very favourably apart from the south-east of England. However, I was going to move on to Labour now, and I think that it's worth reminding ourselves how Labour approached budgets, not least at Glasgow City Council last week, apparently with the endorsement of their alleged national leadership. Glasgow was setting its budget in incredibly difficult times, and of course we all agree that we would like our local councils to have more resources for the great needs that they face. However, for the Labour councillors to not even attend the budget meeting, strikes me as totally irresponsible. I led the Opposition in Glasgow for some years, albeit a fairly small group with Mr Gibson's mother. However, we always sought to take part in the budget process and come up with some suggestions as to how the administration's budget could be improved. Can Mr Mason explain the difference between Mr Sweeney talking to an empty George Square and a few Labour councillors? What happened in Tony Blair's first budget when Labour cut 9 per cent of the city budget, 97 million in a single year, and some 3,000 workers were sacked and 1,000 more were in George Square being spoken to by myself through a megaphone? Labour councillors had to be smuggled out the back door, so there are differences or not? John Mason. I thank him for that intervention, I think that he has made his point. To go back to my speech, even when I was in leading the Opposition in Glasgow City Council, sometimes we had just made a few extra admin savings in order to provide some more for front-line services, but we did make an attempt to make the then Labour budget a bit better. However, effectively, what happened in Glasgow last week was that the Labour councillors could not come up with even one improvement to the SNP budget, so I think that we should take that as a complement to the SNP administration in Glasgow, despite the difficult challenges that they face Labour effectively endorsed the budget. Both the Scottish Government and Parliament and our local councils have to produce balanced budgets. None of us likes the budgets that we are having to set, and we would all like to spend more both nationally and locally on education, health, arts, culture and so on. I think that I have probably taken enough, unless I am going to get a lot of extra time. I can give you the time back. Can I ask the member whether he thinks that Labour councillors should have stayed to hear cuts to social care, whether they should have stayed to hear cuts to burying dead people, whether they should have stayed to hear cuts to education, cuts to psychological services, cuts to the museums and cuts to swimming pools and closures, or should we have gone out and stood with the people of Glasgow? I think that if they thought the SNP administration could have done anything better, they should have suggested that. It was because they couldn't think of anything better other than saying that money should come out of the air that they left. I just see that as totally irresponsible and undemocratic and anything else that you want to call it. However, the reality is that we do not have the resources that we would like, and we do have to live within our means. If Labour MSPs would like to copy their Glasgow councillor colleagues and leave the chamber at this point during my speech, I will not take it personally, but I would warn them that they look just as irresponsible as their colleagues did in the city chambers last week. Moving on to some of the more specific parts of the budget, I very much welcome the slight increases in income tax for those who can afford it. Let's be realistic while some people in our society are really struggling, others are doing very well and have ample money to spend. For example, a new restaurant just opened in my constituency at the turn of the year, but it is solidly booked at key times and I still haven't managed to get a meal there. Some people in our society are clearly comfortably off and can afford to pay a little more in tax, which means that we can use the extra money for those in greater need. It is reckoned that Scotland would have £1 billion less in revenue if we were to match income tax rates in the rest of the UK. The Conservatives seem to favour that approach, but so far they have failed to say where they would cut that extra revenue, would it be from the health services or from local government or wherever. The Conservatives also argue that we need to be competitive with the rest of the UK, and of course we do need to be competitive, but that does not just mean the amount of tax that we pay, it also means a host of other things. People choose to live and work in particular places for a host of reasons, including to be near family and friends, where there is reasonably priced housing, where there are good quality schools, colleges and universities, where there is a good health service, where the environment is cleaner and I would suggest also where they have a government that at least tries to make life fairer and better for ordinary people. On the expenditure side, as has been said, we need to make choices. Of course we would all like to spend more money in the NHS, more in primary healthcare, preventive measures, more in local government, colleges, house building, public transport, but if the money is not there and cannot be raised in the short term, then we do have to live within our means. I agree that in the longer term we need to look at replacing council tax and potentially introducing some new taxes to fund public services, but that is not going to happen in the next six weeks before we start the new year, nor for that matter is the fiscal framework likely to improve in the near future. It still seems to me that the system is fixed against us and it is incredibly difficult for us to compete with London and the south-east of England. I wish the new First Minister, Deputy First Minister and finance secretary, whoever they may be, well in negotiating all of that with Westminster. I welcome £100 million for local government, £6.6 million for arts and culture and I am pleased to support this budget and would urge all members to vote for it at decision time. I am pleasantly surprised that Labour members are still here, although I accept that they could walk out at any moment. I would urge members to support the budget. Relatively compressed nature of the way we do budget processes these days puts those of us involved in the situation of having three very similar debates in very short order, stage one and three in the rates resolution four, if you count the local government settlement. The context for this year's budget is just as we have discussed previously. It is by far the most difficult in this Parliament and Government's history, but this afternoon's update from the Deputy First Minister is very welcome on it. Probably to the relief of journalists assigned to covering this afternoon's debate, it gives us some fresh points for discussion. I know that the additional £100 million for local government will be warmly welcomed, particularly if it is used as intended to support pay. Although I have had inquiries from some of my own party's councils this afternoon that I would appreciate if the Government could respond to later on. Just asking on a practical level when the new local government circular will be circulated, because some councils are setting budgets today, tomorrow and over the course of the coming week. Councils are under immense pressure at the moment. I would not pretend that this settlement solves all the challenges that they face. This budget gives councils a significant cash terms funding increase, but we are all familiar with the impact of inflation on public sector pay, the spike in energy and food prices, the growing demand for services such as social care and the myriad of other challenges that local government faces. The Scottish Government faces those same challenges and without the full fiscal and economic powers needed to handle them. One long overdue solution to that problem, although it certainly would not resolve all of the challenges in and of itself, is the replacement of the council tax. It is mad that the primary lever of local taxation in Scotland is largely set nationally and that it is based on valuations from before I was born. Most people pay the wrong rate of council tax because those valuations are so tragically out of date. Four out of the five parties in this Parliament have, at various points in the last few years, published proposals for a council tax replacement, some based on income and others on land and property values. By the midpoint of the last session of this Parliament, we were closer than we had ever been before to agreeing on a replacement before that process was derailed by the pandemic. A new process is now under way, co-chaired by one green and one SNP minister and by a representative of COSLA. I was genuinely pleased to hear Daniel Johnson's comments at stage 1 of the budget process that Labour is prepared to re-engage with that question. Agreeing a replacement for the council tax could be one of the key achievements of this session of Parliament. I am confident that the process that we have established through the Bute House agreement will lead to that replacement being developed and agreed between the parties of Government, but I know that it would be stronger for the engagement of the Opposition, so I hope that Liberal and Conservative colleagues will join Labour and put forward their proposals. I am sure that Mr Arthur and Mr Harvie would welcome the contributions of any new ideas to the discussion. One other point from earlier debates that I would like to pick up on was made by Liz Smith and it was around Labour market participation, because it is a point that I think we can all agree on. We have increasing evidence now, particularly from a study by Sheffield-Hallam University, that there is a significant number of people on incapacity benefit in Scotland who want to work. I emphasise the distinction. There are a number of people on incapacity benefit who are unable to work, and that is not about pushing them into work that they are unable to do, but there is now significant evidence of a number of people on incapacity benefit because they cannot find a form of work that meets their specific needs. It is for that reason that I welcome the increase in funding for employability programmes in the budget, particularly for employability programmes for parents looking to re-enter the workforce. That goes back to the point that Michelle Thomson made as well around the gendered impact of inequality in labour market participation, increasing the parental employability fund with something that Greens had worked hard for during the budget process. I am glad to see it here. Despite the challenges outwith our control, this is the greenest budget ever. Scrapping peak-time rail fares will save travellers hundreds of pounds and end-bought assol have correctly labelled attacks on commuters. Twenty thousand more children will be eligible for free school meals. Eighty million pounds will be invested in expanding school catering facilities so that eligibility can be expanded to even more children as soon as possible. There is over two billion pounds to tackle the climate and nature crisis. That includes increased funding for nature restoration for our national parks and for environment agencies. The £25 a week game-changing Scottish child payment will be fully rolled out. As the IFS has confirmed, Scotland will have the most progressive tax and social security system anywhere in the UK. By raising the higher rate of income tax and the additional dwelling supplement, the highest earners and those buying holiday homes and extra properties will pay a bit more to fund the public services that are so desperately needed during this cost of living crisis. Scotland has extremely limited devolved taxation and revenue-raising powers. Although we certainly need more financial powers, it would be wrong to just make that argument without making the best use of the powers that we have. We might be in a cost of living crisis, but there are plenty of high income and wealthy people in this country who can afford to pay a bit more. Those on the highest incomes can afford an extra penny on the tax paid on the top slice of their salary, and those in a position where they can buy a second home or a holiday home can absolutely afford to pay a bit more on that purchase. I am proud that the budget will see the higher and top rates of income tax and the additional dwelling supplement on LBTT rise. Between those rate changes and freezing income tax thresholds, more than half a billion pounds more will be raised to support public services and to deliver those vital additional interventions such as free school mail expansion. That is building on the progress that we already made in 2018, making income tax and council tax that bit more progressive. Despite the challenges, the budget delivers for people and planet. It includes a record £2.2 billion to tackle the climate emergency. It delivers more affordable public transport. It provides essential support to children and families, and it does so by having the wealthiest in our society pay a bit more. That is something that is worth voting for. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As you will be aware, this is my foray back to the Parliament as part of my phase return to work. I would like to start off by thanking those from all corners of the chamber who contacted me to wish me well. It does go to show that underneath the masses of a politician often lies a real human being. Not always, but often. However, much as it has been a well since I have been here for a debate, nothing much appears to have changed. We still have Labour and Tories listening off all the things that we should have done whilst forgetting that, in parts of the UK in which they are in power, they have not bothered to implement them. It would be nice if, while listening to today's debate, we could put aside the party politics. Remember who we are and are here to represent, and, except that it is essential to agree in today's budget if we want to deliver that fairer and more prosperous Scotland. I am the first to admit that this budget is not what I would like it to be. However, unlike the Labour and Tory parties, I am still unaware of where that money tree is planted. Just as a reminder to all around the chamber, Scotland works within a fixed budget. Everything that we commit to, we have to have the money to implement. If we want to spend more money in schools, we have to find that money from another service. We cannot nor jury in the fantasy of an uncosted wish list at budget time, and neither should any serious party of opposition. John Mason is already touched on by my fellow ex-councillor, but I know how hard it is to get a budget through as an opposition leader. When I was leader of Glasgow SNP, I put one forward that cost me a finance spokesperson and a ton of misery from some within my group, some because I had not included a pet project or some because I was not cutting enough, but I still did it. That is because we are a serious opposition with ambitions to take on governance of Glasgow. It is just a shame that neither of the main opposition parties had the guts to do that. Listening to some of the opposition speeches today, you missed the importance, you would forget how essential delivering the budget is to improving the lives of those most in need. Namely, they aim to eradicate child poverty, transform the economy and create sustainable public services, aims the people of Scotland expect us to agree on. Let us not forget that, according to the IMF, under the Tories watch, Britain will be the only G7 economy to shrink in 2023, making life harder for millions. Remember when looking at today's proposals, those are proposals that will cease the social security spending increase to more than £5.1 billion per year. Proposals will continue the most ambitious child poverty reduction measure in the UK, the Scottish child payments, and those are measures that are making a real difference to those facing hardship and poverty, a measure that has risen by over 150 per cent to £25 a week. Benefits will also be upgraded by 10.1 per cent, supporting those struggling with the cost of living crisis. According to the OBR, total spending and social security will be more than £770 million above the funding received for social security through the block grant adjustment. I have listened to other views on the shortcomings of today's budget, but they are serious about tackling the issue of support calls for Scotland to have full control over its finances. Anything else simply shows them up to be simply parties to be holding the union to put the needs of the people of Scotland first. Finally, it is important to remember that today's budget continues and maintains a number of commitments that we are rightly proud of. Free higher education, free bus travel—last week, we heard that patients in England are failing to collect prescriptions or heart-breakingly asking pharmacists which ones they can do without because they cannot afford prescription charges, which stand at a staggering £9.35 per item. Let's not forget that in Scotland prescriptions are free and that today's budget continues this policy. Only the other day, London's mayor announced that it would provide free school meals for a year, describing them as game-changing plans. I welcome that announcement, but let's not forget that, rather than game-changing, this is in Norman Scotland and not only for the year. I realise that my speech is shorter than usual. I have obviously lost my time and, Presiding Officer, I apologise for that. In conclusion, it is time for this Parliament under threat, like it had never been before, to rally behind the needs of the people of Scotland, demand the powers of full control over fiscal powers and support this budget to ensure that the people of Scotland continue to benefit from the decisions that are made in this Parliament today. Support the budget, please. Thank you, Mr Dornan. Welcome back, and clearly time goes most slowly when you're joining us online. I now call Miles Briggs to be followed by Emma Roddick around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome James Dornan back to Parliament as well. Those of us who serve on the social justice committee get to see him on a weekly basis down the television, so we do welcome him back to Parliament in person. Over the past few hours, we've heard a new word probably in politics, and that is de-endorsement of many of the SNP members' decisions around their leadership. I would like to welcome the finance secretary's de-endorsement of many parts of his budget. I do welcome the fact that he has listened to many concerns put forward and changed spending commitments within the coming budget as well. In recent weeks, I've met councillors across Scotland from all parties and listened to their concerns. I want to open today by thanking all those who work in local government across our country because they have gone the extra mile during the pandemic to help to support all our communities and still feel that they have not been given the support that they need to carry on and recover from that pandemic. For many in local government, it feels like the challenges and pressures on local services have not passed or recovered that they are very real today. After 15 years of the SNP Government underfunding local government in Scotland, there are increasing concerns over the long-term financial sustainability of our local government finances and the problems that face our councils across the country. Put simply, for council leaders that I have spoken to across Scotland, there is nothing more that they can cut beyond core services to balance their budgets. They will welcome the additional million pounds. Many will start balancing that with the funding floor, which will probably see the finance minister give with one hand and take away with the other. Despite that, councils will be setting their budgets in the coming weeks and will still have to make significant cuts to services. In Clackmannanshire, councillors are considering reducing home-to-school transport and the amount of money that is spent on the delivery of secondary school subjects. Kenny Gibson's area of North Ayrshire, the Arran outdoor education centre, could be shut to save cash. Beyond education, leisure services will face cuts in many areas. Inverclyde council is looking to close Greenock Sports Centre, Port Glasgow-Sawingpool. In West Lothian council, in my own region, library services are suggested for cuts, including West Calder. In Western Bartonshire, the council is thinking about reducing opening hours for recycling centres. Many charities are worried about the loss of grant funding from local authorities as well. That is concerning so many of our third sector who feel that they could be the last in the line to receive vital funding for the services that they deliver. Like most councils, Aberdeen City and Western Bartonshire are looking at putting up many charges as well. In East Ayrshire, they are now looking at a 4 per cent increase in rent charges for temporary accommodation as well. In East Renfrewshire, there is already a 40 per cent charge on top of council tax for households who want additional garden waste removed, which will go up to £60. We need to look towards that. I listened to the finance secretary say that it is a better deal to work with councils and work with council leaders. I really think that we need to move towards that, because this last budget has seen so many imaginative ways councils are looking at changing their funding, at looking at how they can repurpose council debt, especially around PPP schemes. I do not see anything else that they can do in the future that the Scottish Government does not need to help them to support to balance budgets. I am grateful to Mr Briggs for giving way and for his recognition of the substance of the point that I am making about the need for a more collaborative arrangement. I made that proposition in the budget statement in December and I followed it up with dialogue with council leaders. I put on record my willingness and the Governments will engage in that proposition to ensure that we get to a position where we meet those financial challenges by having a more collaborative approach to how we address those issues. I welcome that, but I think that we need to formally embed that partnership between Scottish Government and local authorities, because the Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish Government budget is linked to UK Government spending and they have bailed out the Deputy First Minister to the tune of £146 million, I believe, of additional spend now available. However, our councils are not necessarily seeing that same uplift in their budgets and we need to see that vital opportunity for what we are asking our councils to fund and more and more policy funding commitments is properly funded, not just for one year, but for how they take those policies forward. That is something that local government committee hears again and again that local councils cannot match the policy delivery, because they are not having the resources forthcoming. One of the key issues that I raised during stage 1 debate and Sarah Boyack touched on a lot of this as well is with regards to the housing crisis and also the cut to the housing budget. I think that that is something that we do need to reflect on. It is not just Labour politicians or Conservative politicians warning against the shelter work outside Parliament today outlining just their concern. We have the record levels of people living in temporary accommodation. If I can get the time back, I will. Accepting an intervention. First of all, the large set outdoor education centre will be saved. Do you not see that there is a direct correlation between the United Kingdom Government cutting Scotland's capital allocation by half a billion this year and 185 million next year and a reduced inability at a time of high inflation to build more houses? Well, there are a number of competing factors. I take the member's point on that. However, I am not going to apologise for the fact that we are in a housing crisis, that we have the highest number of children and pregnant women living in temporary accommodation. Here in the capital, we are seeing levels of homelessness that we have never experienced before, and the response from the SNP Green Government is to cut 16 per cent from the housing budget and underfund Edinburgh City Council and our health board as well. Delivering outcomes, I think ministers need to really consider what they are not doing for Edinburgh, and so I make no apologies for raising that in Parliament today. Because decisions taken to cut affordable housing supply programmes at the very time we are seeing these increases will come back to haunt this Government, and I think in the autumn we will see a housing crisis in Scotland and the potential collapse of the housing market here in Edinburgh, and SNP and Green members will be held responsible for that. Presiding Officer, it is critical that we now move towards how local authorities can meet these cuts and what impact it will have on our communities, and we will be hearing that in the coming days. However, it is clear from this budget that the SNP Green budget is a pay more, get less budget. I do not think that that is something that we can endorse. As my colleague Liz Smith says, after 15 years of this SNP Government, it is clear that ministers have no fresh ideas to help grow the Scottish economy. Ultimately, it is Scottish taxpayers who are paying the price for this failure to stimulate our Scottish economy. Governing leadership is about choices, who and what you prioritise, the principles that you stand by, and the choices that you make about where to place limited money and resources. I am proud to be in a party that unashamedly and consistently prioritises tackling poverty, tackling climate change and tackling social inequalities. I led a debate just before recess on financial times analysis into the unacceptable level of income inequality in the UK. Instead of the UK Government tackling this massive gap between the richest and poorest, it is instead ensuring by design that it gets bigger. In this budget, we are actually tackling the cost of living crisis and particularly child poverty with targeted benefits unique in the UK and a progressive taxation policy that will redistribute wealth. £428 million in social security, including upgrading of devolved benefits supplements to reserve benefits and measures such as the Scottish child payment, which are unique in the UK. That is money going directly to those who need it, to tackle poverty, particularly child poverty, and, of course, in terms of supporting the economy, money that is going to people who will spend it, not just store it away. New benefits and top ups to UK-wide benefits mean that, by April, the poorest tenth of Scottish households are set to have incomes £580 per year higher than they would under the system in place in England and Wales. Amongst the poorest 30 per cent, Scottish reforms are set to raise the incomes of households with children by around £2,000 a year on average. That is a good budget for the Highlands and Islands too. In addition to benefiting from the national policies that I have just outlined, I know that many of my constituents will strongly welcome the news that the Scottish Government intends to take action on funding inter-island ferries. The increased cost of fuel among other pressures is really testing the budgets of local authorities in my region. I am sure that we will appreciate that support. I am very grateful to Emma Roddick for giving way. I echo her praise to the Government for funding inter-island ferries and their uplift that they require, but does she agree with me that we are sustaining and ageing ferry fleet? Particularly in the Shetland Isles, it is time that we started talking about funding fixed lanes and short tunnels to connect those islands. Emma Roddick? Yes, absolutely. I am looking forward to the new islands connectivity plan, which will look at fixed links as well as ferries only. I also hope that this change will open the door to ministers reconsidering extending under-22 free bus travel to inter-island ferries to put our young islanders, particularly those who live in outer islands, on an even footing with mainlanders. I also want to welcome the announcement about Creative Scotland's funding, because I have a very cheery Clare Adamson sitting next to me. I understand the initial decision to expect the organisation to make use of its reserves rather than continue to top them up, but it is very exciting to now think of what its funded organisations will be able to do with both this continued extra funding as well as its reserves. My region is incredibly rich in arts and culture, and I look forward to seeing what Eden Court and creatives across the highlands and islands will do with the financial and confidence boost that the Deputy First Minister has given them today. However, I know that the Scottish Government would like to go further and that it is unable to because of the constraints of devolution. I think that mitigating successfully so many of the worst UK policies over and over has given people an inaccurate sense of how possible and easy it is to do, alongside governing to the best of our ability on devolved matters. So much of our limited budget is going towards protecting people from another Government's welfare cuts. That is unsustainable and it is just plain wrong. We need the powers here to tackle the problem at source, and I am disappointed though not surprised to hear Opposition members call for more public spending with no suggestion of what to cut and no support for calls for greater fiscal flexibility. £20 million for a referendum to me would have been incredible value for money, and indeed it is less than the correction of the error that the Deputy First Minister informed us about us earlier. I have said this before, but it is incredible when you think about it, so I am going to repeat it. We expect to spend £770 million this year on mitigating UK Government decisions like the bedroom tax. That is 38 referendums, but as the UK Government has refused against democratic sense to allow to ask the people of Scotland if they have changed their minds, I can think of no better use for that money than to extend the fuel and security fund. That is vital for the Highlands and Islands, where people are being left to suffer fuel poverty as a direct result of Whitehall's failure to regulate the energy market and address unfairness in the system, such as that which sees my constituents face higher standing charges than people elsewhere in the UK. We also know now more than ever that volatility in the market and interest rates is not the only challenge that we face. We heard in the Deputy First Minister's opening speech that an error in the spending review meant that we were working to different figures than the last time we discussed the budget, and last year I and every other SNP MSP were asked on multiple occasions to welcome increases to the budget and then later comment on the fact that those increases were no longer happening. I do not envy the Deputy First Minister his role in trying to deal with the ever-changing promises of the size of our budget, and I hope that the people of Scotland will see how ridiculous it is that we cannot overspend, borrow, react to events within a fiscal year, but are expected to deal with someone else doing those things and the impact that that has on our spending decisions. The Scottish Government, in conclusion, in setting this budget, has also set an intention of the kind of country that we want to be, fairer, greener, stronger, and I hope that very soon we won't just have to imagine what we could do if we also had power over energy policy, immigration, income-based benefits and the economy too. Thank you. Pam Duncan-Glantie, be followed by Siobhan Brown around six minutes, Ms Duncan-Glantie. Once again we come to this chamber today to discuss a budget that we on these benches know is failing our communities and a budget that I'm afraid to say illustrates either an inability or an unwillingness to protect those who need it the most. It's a budget that the SNP green government have engineered against a backdrop of hundreds of thousands of Scots struggling to put food on the table, parents going hungry so their children don't have to, households turning their heating off so they can afford to eat and in some cases being unable to afford to do either. We face the worst cost of living crisis in memory, prices are rising but wages aren't, businesses are closing because running costs are so high and people are losing their jobs and money advisers are going home with the same worries they've been advising clients on. This budget should have defended Scots people against deepening inequality and tackling the scourge of poverty that exists. That should be reducing pressure on families, making work pay and empowering local councils to take decisions that protect their communities. Instead the SNP green budget does none of that in what they have brought before us today is a budget that is not serious about addressing inequality. We all know the saying, don't tell me what you value, show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value. By that measure and from looking across the budget where equality scarcely feature, it certainly is clear what this government doesn't value. A budget that was serious about addressing inequality would have addressed women's poverty by valuing women's work, by ending the scandal of poverty pay in the female dominated social care sector and by boosting social care wages to £12 an hour immediately. That's what Scottish Labour would have done because we value our social care workers and we know that they deserve more than a measly lower than inflation pay rise that translates to just 40 pence in real terms. We know that unpaid carers deserve more too. A government serious about tackling women's inequality should be prioritising reducing the number of unpaid carers living in poverty, a number currently at 44 per cent. Instead, it's a budget that's bereft of measures to reduce that number, failing to double the carers allowance supplement despite the government's own commitment, cutting local authority budgets, threatening respite services and failing to target any cost of living support, all while the government continues to leave carers allowance in the hands of the DWP rather than using the powers of devolution to make a difference to unpaid carers and women's lives. That is a budget that has nothing to offer disabled people either. No targeted support to defend themselves against the rising costs of living and a failure to use the rollout of the new adult disability payment to ensure social security payments actually reflect the additional costs that disabled people face. Or to make sure that people with fluctuating conditions like MS don't miss out on the money that they deserve because of unfair measures still in there, such as the 20m and 50% rules. A Government that is serious about tackling inequality would not present spending plans that do not even acknowledge Scotland's personal debt crisis. Things are so bad that people are no longer just borrowing for luxuries. They now have no option but to borrow to cover essentials. The situation is dire. Debt causes financial instability, homelessness and mental health issues. It leaves people stressed, drained and overwhelmed. It is not morally or economically sensible for the state to aggressively pursue public debt, which a lot of it is, or to cost itself money as a result of the way that it is doing that, especially when we know that most of that debt is never recovered. However, there is not a single measure to look to address that in this budget. We should help people to get out of debt and stay out of it, not make things worse, and public debt enforcement should never push people into hardship. The need for money and debt advice has never been more important, but the sector is currently oversubscribed and under resourced. Weightless are growing and lifeline services are threatened. The SNP Government is willing to let those lifelines go to the wall and inequality deepen as a result, and their budget shows it. It is not just money and debt advice that is starving of cash. Cuts to public bodies, local government and the third sector will all exacerbate poverty and inequality too. In Glasgow, I have been campaigning on making our city safer for women. A cornerstone of doing that is ensuring reliable, affordable and safe transport options are available, but failing to properly support bus travel means organisations such as SPT are having to find millions to plug gaps about what they have already warned they cannot keep doing, and without further support from the Government, they will not be able to defend against service cuts and it is women who will suffer. Counselors across the country are being forced to make heartbreaking decisions about which vital services to cut, such as in Glasgow where the removal of funding for the food train has left pensioners across the city, fearing that they do not know how they will access food. We are education staff and educational psychologists who are being cut, threatening not just jobs but our children's education, and community groups, such as Partick Fistle Community Trust, are scrambling to replace funding to keep their programmes running. Where childcare charges are increasing for already struggling families, libraries and sports facilities are reducing opening hours or simply not reopening their doors, and previously funded public museums free are introducing now entry fees. I thank the member for taking his intervention. She represents a city like I, who has seen some of the highest increases in homelessness in recent months. What impact do you think that that will also have? I thank the member for that intervention. I am terrified about the impact of this budget on homelessness because we have seen what happens when cuts to local authorities mean that they cannot meet the homelessness targets or that they cannot put people in homes. The number of children in temporary accommodation in Glasgow is growing, so I am terrified about what that budget means for homeless people across the city of Glasgow and across other cities in the country. The budget before us today does not just fail to address inequality at central government or tie the hands of councils to act within local authorities. It is a budget that is slowly eroding a last line of defence people have against inequality too. Last year, the third sector saw more than £1 million cuts to its budget. This year, the Scottish Government is upping its demands on the sector but not increasing its resources accordingly. The SNP are waxing lyrical on fair pay but handing responsibility to the third sector without the money and leaving them to pick up the bill. The sector stepped up during the pandemic and is doing so again. A budget that does not recognise that threatens lifeline services and damages the ability of the sector to provide a safety net. It is crystal clear that this budget is not serious about addressing inequality and none of this is helped by the fact that the Government does not have the necessary data to assess the impact the budget decisions actually have. That means that neither Audit Scotland or equality organisations could tell us where spending is helping priority groups. The equality budget action group said that it is difficult to follow the money through the budget. They say that allocations are repeated, that our origin of budget line spending is unclear, that the narrative does not align with the tables that it talks about and that all makes it harder to assess whether spending has gone up or down. It feels like the Government cannot possibly know whether or not its spending is making a difference to equality. Even navigating the budget was like an artwork in itself according to one witness in the Equalities Committee. In summary, this is a legacy of entrenched inequality with minority groups scrapping for crumbs and getting bills instead. That is a legacy that the First Minister will leave behind but is one that I suspect our successor may indeed vote for. Enough is enough. Delivering the change Scotland needs starts with getting serious about tackling poverty and inequality, and it is clear that neither the SNP or my friend to say the Greens at this point have done so as their priority. As we are all fully aware, this has been one of the most challenging budgets under extreme economic pressure, and although very difficult decisions have had to be made, I am pleased to support today's budget. I also welcome the additional £100 million for local authorities. Alongside many of my constituents who support the Gayity Theatre and Air, we welcome the announcement of the £6.6 million investment for culture in Scotland through Creative Scotland. Of course, if it was not for the restraints of devolution, we could have gone much further. It is disappointing, although expected that the UK Government's autumn statement failed to address the pressure on devolved budgets to help people with the cost of living crisis, support public services and finance fair pay offers. To add to the challenge of our pandemic recovery, we find ourselves in one of the most turbulent economic and political times most of us can ever remember. While Putin continues his barbaric attack on Ukraine, energy prices continue to soar, crippling households and businesses, inflation continues to rise, adding to everyday household bills, workforce shortages across every sector as a result of Brexit and, of course, the infamous mismanagement of the public finances of the UK Conservative Government. This Scottish Government continues to do all it can with the powers it has to deliver for the people of Scotland. Because we are in these volatile times, it is critical that the budget is correct to tackle poverty, to protect our NHS and to make us a fairer and greener society. Let me go on to highlight some of the key ways in which the budget addresses the problems that we are facing as a result of the current crisis after Brexit and the pandemic. I will start with our young people. The pandemic has hit hard on some of our children and their lives were completely changed by lockdowns and restrictions, and it is imperative that we address the challenges that they are currently facing. With the limited powers it has, the Scottish Government is doing more than any of the UK administration to tackle child poverty. With the expansion of the Scottish Child Payment to under 16, it estimated to take 50,000 children out of poverty and already increased the groundbreaking payment to £25 per child, this budget invests £428 million to upgrade all other devolved benefits in 2023 by September's CPI level of 10.1 per cent. The budget also provides additional support to our education system by ensuring the expansion of free school meals to P6s and P7s in receipt of the Scottish Child Payment. Living in poverty impacts negatively on children's educational outcomes and subjects families to increase stress. Free school meals in our schools promote well-being equity and food is a key part of the day and it can make a big difference. According to child poverty action group, currently 16 per cent of school children in Scotland who are growing up in poverty are not eligible for free meals. The roll-out of P6s to P7s will further reduce this percentage and it has to be noted that 31 per cent of children currently living in England in poverty are not eligible for free school meals. There is a stark difference in political decisions really making a difference. This budget will also deliver for our young people by ensuring their parents and guardians are supported through the cost of living crisis and I'm sure as all of MSPs across the chamber will relate to the emails my office has received, contacted by constituents who are worried about turning on their heating over the winter and heartbreakingly people having to make the choice between heating and eating. This is a reality and this should not be happening in a developed country in 2023. All this is happening as energy companies announce record profits which I personally find absolutely obscene and the use of food banks continue to grow across the UK and the current UK Conservative government has failed to take decisive action and deliver for households who are really struggling to get by. The Scottish government on the other hand is the voice of the hardworking people whose monthly income has been eaten away by the rising bills caused, causing many families real hardship. The budget commits £20 million to extend the fuel insecurity fund to provide a lifeline to households including the most vulnerable against rising energy prices. We are choosing to take a different path from the austerity of cestories using a fair tax system which sees the majority of Scots pay less than if they lived elsewhere in the UK and to invest in our public services and let me speak about those public services. We all know that they are under considerable strain and one of the biggest problems is the damage caused by Brexit to the labour market. Many of our vital services just do not have the staff numbers that they need and with powers over immigration, which has already been, yes? She acknowledged that there are now more EU citizens living in Scotland than there were before 2016 at any point. There is a record level of EU citizens living in Scotland, so she acknowledged that. I cannot acknowledge that because I do not recognise that figure. However, I see independent countries that have immigration policies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which are trying to get our doctors and nurses to move over there at the moment. We do not have the powers to do it in Scotland at the moment, so no. Our NHS saw us through Covid. We now have the duty to protect it for future generations to make sure that the quality of your healthcare is not dependent on your income. The spending budget delivers more than £13.7 billion for our NHS boards, as well as £2 billion to establish and improve primary healthcare services in our communities. Overall, the budget provides record funding of over £19 billion to health and social care portfolio. Can I get the time back for the intervention? You can get some time back, please. All of the policies announced in this budget add upon the several benefits that people in other parts of the UK have been unable to take advantage of under the Conservatives and Labour Governments, including free prescriptions, free higher education, free concessionary bus travel for the under-22s. Along with the day, we can have the powers to go further. Please support today's budget. Thank you, Ms Brown. I now call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Emma Harper. Well, Siobhan Brown, I can assure you that what I shared in my intervention is factual, as it is true for the whole of the United Kingdom, it is true of Scotland. Can I also acknowledge in Siobhan Brown's speech that she used for the first time a very important word that had not appeared in any previous speech, which must be acknowledged, and that is Ukraine. In this week of all weeks, it is absolutely fundamental that we unitedly acknowledge the impact that Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine is costing not just the people of Ukraine, obviously, in the first instance, but the entirety of Europe and the entirety of the world economy is impacted by what is happening in Ukraine in terms of energy and food security. That is the backdrop to this budget and to the UK's budget as well. Having said that, I agree with something that I heard earlier, which is that budgets do show political priority. I would have to say that this budget, whatever it does, shows that the SNP's political priority is not education and skills, it is not about our young people. Take, for example, higher education. This budget represents a real-term cut in funding of 0.7 per cent for our universities, it includes a 2.7 cut in capital investment and we are in real danger of Scotland's universities falling further behind the rest of the United Kingdom and more dependent on revenue from international students' fees in an increasingly volatile global market. There has been a 34 per cent increase in the number of Scottish students being refused entry to Scottish universities since the year 2006. That cannot be right. Educating young Scots is not the priority for this Government, and it ought to be. I wonder if Mr Kerr would care to complete the picture by recognising that there are a record number of young people from Scotland going to university and a record number of young people from deprived backgrounds going to university as well. I welcome the fact that we are catching up with the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to accessibility to university from people who come from disadvantaged and difficult backgrounds. The reality is that, in tertiary education, the lack of parity that the SNP sees between universities and colleges can be writ large in terms of the differential payments that they pay for students. Colleges will be forced to make 25 per cent redundancies this year. I very well know, and I wish to confirm to Parliament, that we have both raised the issue of the disparity in funding between colleges and universities at the education committee. We also know that the Scottish funding council is doing due diligence work to, hopefully, address that aspect and bring forward real-life data to, hopefully, address that funding gap going forward. Is that something that you would support? I can support the fact that we need to remove the disparity of esteem that there is in terms of the choices that young people face. That their road to university should no longer be paved with gold when the other pathways that are available to young people are not available to them with the same degree of commitment and support. I repeat again that colleges will be forced to make redundancies, and SNP and green members should be ashamed. The chamber will also well know that universities receive £7,500 per student, which college students only attract £5,000. Those are the numbers behind. Such is the disparity of esteem. On apprenticeships, the Scottish Training Federation has pointed out repeatedly that the Scottish Government has frozen places. Perhaps someone on the Government benches would like to tell me that they are wrong. I'm happy that we don't have the figures in front, but I can say that the latest figures show an uplift and increase in number of starts at quarter three compared to quarter two. Ms Kerr told me that there was a freeze. It seems to be that apprentices are still being recruited this year. The Scottish Training Federation is now being accused by the Minister of not knowing what they are talking about, because they say that there is a freeze. They say that training organisations will be forced out of business completely. The SNP, the Deputy First Minister, has lost the head. He's lost the head. I'm pleased that I have less secondary hurling of abuse, as the previous P.O. in the chair described it. Mr Kerr, please resume. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The SNP clearly does not see further, higher or technical education as a priority. It ought to be. Governments commit resources based on their priorities. I will give way. I'm conscious of the fact that I may be running out of time though. A wee bit extra time will be given. Monica Lennon. I'm very grateful to the member for giving way. I think that some very important points have been made about the future of apprenticeships. I know that the Minister pays a lot of attention to the cross-party group on construction, but there were very serious concerns raised just a week before recess about the future of plumbers, electricians, other trade decorating and so on, and concerns were raised that some of those apprenticeships might end if people might not get jobs. Those are important points, perhaps the Minister who is listening would engage with the group urgently, because there are genuine concerns out there. I was glad to facilitate Monica Lennon making a plea to the Minister. By the way, I endorse what Monica Lennon has said. Combined with the cuts in colleges and the cuts in skills development Scotland, this is not the direction that we should be travelling in this country at the minute, given the economic backdrop that we are all dealing with. Whatever John Swinney says, usually at length and at the top of his voice as witnessed earlier, especially when he is speaking to me, this SNP Government does not prioritise the future of our young people. It does not put their money where their mouth is. It looks like it will be no fun growing up in SNP Scotland over the next few years, because we know that there is a real shortfall in council spending and that young people will bear the brunt of those cuts in their communities. If anyone on the Government benches is going to stand up and tell me that this local government settlement is good and generous and will help to make their communities the best places for our children to grow up in, I am delighted to hear from them. The Deputy First Minister on cue stands. I am very grateful for the opportunity to say to Mr Kerr and to the chamber that a local government settlement that gives local government £793 million more than it was expecting is undoubtedly a very good deal for local government in the financial chaos inflicted on us by the Conservative Government. It is the same old broken record. So, Deputy First Minister, where are the additional 3,500 teachers promised in the SNP manifesto? There are actually fewer teachers this year than there were last year. Where is the additional 3,500? Even with the threats of sanctions looming over local councils, the fact is that the actual number of teachers is falling. As we heard yesterday from the University of Stirling, subject choices are narrowing impactively on the life chances of our young people. Councils have been forced to make other cuts because of the threats that have been issued by Shirley-Anne Somerville. What is the impact of that, if I may indulge the chair for one moment longer? Falkirk Council's SNP administration has proposed cuts to school transport that will affect 600 children who have to walk busy roads for miles and miles without transport. That is the same SNP administration that is closing four swimming pools. Meanwhile, councils of all political persuasions and sizes are looking at a host of savings and cuts that will impact on young people. Mr Kerr, could I please ask you to conclude? I will conclude. I appreciate that. Cuts to youth services, summer play opportunities, swimming lessons, cheaper ways of making school meals, cuts to social interventions, Scotland, thanks to the SNP, cuts to local authority to become a land of rusting play equipment, closed community centres and cancelled futures, and it isn't good enough. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now call Emma Harper, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Ms Harper. To govern us to choose, and the Scottish Government has made its choice, and Emma Roddick stated that very well. Eradicating child poverty, transforming the economy to deliver net zero and creating sustainable public services are the key aims of the Scottish budget this year. Families, businesses and our public finances are under sustained economic pressure, and the Scottish Government has acted decisively to provide what support it can within the resources that we have allocated. Steps that the Government takes now will help to ensure Scotland emerges from the current crisis a stronger, fairer, greener and more equal country. I welcome that James Dornan described that in his contribution, and I welcome his return to the chamber today. Of course, the Scottish Government would like to go even further, but the cost of living crisis has laid bare the fiscal constraints of devolution and the need for Scotland to take its place as a normal independent nation. With the current fiscal powers, the Scottish Government is enacting right through this budget more than any other UK administration to tackle poverty. Scotland is the only part of the UK to introduce the Scottish child payment, which has now been increased to £25, so there is a 150 per cent increase in eight months. The budget extends that to all under-16s, which is estimated to lift 50,000 children out of poverty here in Scotland. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that the full roll-out of the Scottish child payment is a watershed moment for tackling poverty in Scotland, and the rest of the UK should take notice. Indeed, a recent report from the Child Poverty Action Group shows that the cost of bringing up a child in Scotland is significantly reduced thanks to Scottish Government interventions, including the Scottish child payment alongside free school meals, best art grant payments and free bus travel. However, the progress is undermined by the actions of the UK Government with the same report stating that Scottish policies are immensely important in reducing the level of financial strain and hardship on families, but they are fighting a rearguard action. Difficult decisions are required, and this budget ensures that resources are targeted where they are most needed and can secure maximum value for every pound spent. However, the choices that are faced are all starker because of the UK Government. Economic projections show the staggering cost of continued Westminster control. The IMF, as Deputy First Minister has rightly mentioned, has recently predicted that the UK will be the only major economy to shrink in 2023. That is a devastating indictment on the UK Government's management of the economy and will only further exacerbate the significant challenges faced by the Scottish Government. The UK Government's disastrous approach to Brexit has damaged labour supply through the loss of free movement of people and undermined frictional trade with their nearest markets. At no stage since the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 have conditions been more volatile and the dangers more severe. In autumn, the Scottish Government had to make unprecedented reductions to its spending plans midway through the current financial year, totaling £1.2 billion. The Scottish Government had to do that because, once a financial year commences and in the absence of borrowing powers to address in-year volatility or the ability to alter income tax, it operates a fixed total budget unless the UK Government allocates any additional money to Scotland. For the first time since this Government took power, the finance secretary has announced a budget for the next financial year, assuming that the Scottish Government does not carry forward any fiscal resources from this year to next. For comparison, the Scottish Government for this year was underpinned by £450 million of resources carried over from the previous year, but the absence of that carryover increases the financial challenges that the Government faces. On the national care service, I am not sure where Douglas Lumsden was sitting in the committee room when we took evidence at health and sport committee from the many people who do support a national care service, especially the people with lived experience who want their care to be more joined up and more about what they choose as well. I am just wondering if Douglas Lumsden wants to ignore and disregard the voices of lived experience when we are trying to take evidence at committee. Of course I will. Douglas Lumsden? I guess that it is not so much about what the people with care experience are. Obviously there needs to be changes, but at this point the Government cannot even tell us what that is and how much it is going to cost. We have had a financial memorandum, came to the finance department—the finance committee, I mean—and was completely inadequate and had to be thrown out. That is what we are calling for. It is the clarity of what the national care service is going to be. Am I hearing that Douglas Lumsden is in favour of a national care service now, because the framework legislation is in process? We have not even got our first report from health, social care and sport committee, so maybe if members were a wee bit more patient and got on board, including with the lived experience of the folk that are saying that we should take this national care service forward, maybe the members should actually maybe look at the evidence instead of reading what they see in the papers. One final point that I would like to briefly touch on is local authority funding. Councils and their employees play a crucial role in our communities across Scotland and deserve the fairest settlement possible. In the most challenging budget settlement since devolution, the Scottish Government is providing nearly £13.5 billion in local government settlement this year. Just looking at the notes of what the Deputy First Minister has said just remind chamber that the additional funding for 2022-24 is on top of the £570 million increase in funding that has already been included in the local government settlement and the total additional funding for next year for local government is £793 million. I am conscious of time. In conclusion, I support this budget. I will vote for the budget at decision time and I will encourage my colleagues across chamber to support this budget at decision time too. We will now move to closing speeches and I call on Jackie Baillie to wind up for Scottish Labour around the minute. Thank you very much. Let me start on a note of consensus and welcome the additional money for Creative Scotland and of course for teachers pay. This budget will shape the next SNP leaders priorities in government. Nicola Sturgeon's replacement has a choice to make. Vote against this budget or continue her legacy of cutting local government, slashing public services and continuing the crisis in health and social care. Perhaps that is wishful thinking on my part. After all, many of the candidates have been sat around the cabinet table agreeing to successive cuts to local government for years now. Kate Forbes has been the cabinet secretary for finance and the economy for three years and on her watch council budgets have been hit year after year. She had an opportunity to transform the wages of social care workers but failed to do so. Humza Yousaf, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, should have spoken up for social care staff and services years ago but instead he voted for the budgets that have crippled them and he looks set to do the same again today. Ash Ragan has voted for every single council cutting budget since she was elected in 2016. I am not sure whether she is the one who gets the credit for securing a U-turn in funding for Creative Scotland or whether it is actually down to the efforts of the SCUC and the creative sector themselves. However, let me move on. With the announcement today, the Deputy First Minister claims to be passing on a £700 million increase to councils, but, according to IFS, when you remove ring-fencing, this amounts to no more than £71 million. That is equivalent to a £304 million real terms cut. I see him shaking his head, but disagreeing with the IFS is not a clever thing to do. The cheek of Humza Yousaf coming to Westin Bartonshire to launch his campaign when the SNP cuts are forcing the council to cut £21 million from essential services. Over 7,000 jobs across Scotland are under threat because of that. Councils are considering selling off buildings, outsourcing services to make savings or even cutting back on children's services. Whoever is lucky enough to take over from Nicola Sturgeon will have to answer to striking teachers, poorly paid social care workers and their own SNP councillors who have been forced to break rank and speak out against the damage being done because they know that this budget is bad for Scotland. We cannot begin to tackle the problems that are facing Scotland without addressing the crisis in social care. The lack of ambition for social care, which this budget displays, compounds the catastrophe that engulfs the NHS and serves to weaken social care further. The NHS crisis will not be solved if patients cannot be quickly and safely discharged when they stay in hospital comes to an end. It will also not be solved if we fail to invest in primary care, our GPs and health professionals serving our communities. There are too few GPs to cope with demand and the BMA estimates that we are 1,000 GPs short, so people will inevitably end up at A and E because they cannot get seen at their local surgery. The bottleneck at the back door of our hospitals is causing long waits at A and E and lengthy ambulance waiting times because of a lack of beds. That bottleneck is entirely because of the crisis in social care. Staff vacancies are increasing exponentially as they leave in droves to take jobs in hospitality and retail, and the safety of those receiving care is being compromised as a result. The Scottish Women's Budget Group and the Coalition of Care and Support Providers have been absolutely clear that the Scottish Government must pay social care staff more than the insulting 40-pence rise that they have been given. Just yesterday, a supermarket announced that it would pay staff a minimum of £11 per hour. The SNP cannot even manage to match that for social care staff. That is truly shameful, no wonder staff are demoralised and exhausted. Labour's proposals of paying an immediate £12 per hour, while continuing the fight for 15, have been costed and they are affordable. It will make a huge difference to sustaining care in our communities. Instead of paying staff a fair wage, the SNP continued to plough ahead with a deeply flawed national care service bill. It lacks vision and will not make an actual difference to care. Posing the national care service, funding urgent priorities such as staffing, ending non-residential care charges and increasing respite would make a real difference to care providers, to staff, to carers and to those cared for. There are still unanswered questions around how much the national care service would cost in VAT. Just imagine paying 20 per cent to the Treasury and not spending it on care. What about the pensions of the 70,000 public sector workers who will be transferred from local government to an organisation that they know so little about? No answer from the SNP. It is not unreasonable for workers to ask who will pay their pensions and how they will do so. However, the Government seems to think that those people do not deserve answers to such an important detail. Where is the budget that delivers the fair work nation? Where is the budget that delivers the 2019 commitment to fair work in social care? Where is the budget that will deliver on promises made to the trade unions about collective bargaining and about fair pay? It is not in this budget, it will not be in the next one. As with so much that we have come to see from this SNP Government, promise lots deliver little. Look, even Nicola Sturgeon herself admitted that local government is struggling with the financial constraints that the SNP is handing to them. The share of the cuts is worse than anything the SNP themselves have experienced. However, Scottish people are being asked to pay more, but they are getting worse services. They are being asked to foot the bill for 15 years of neglect from the SNP to their local communities. That is an SNP Government that is turning its face away from social care. An SNP Government turning its face away from the crisis in the NHS in the hope that sticking plaster approaches will work. An SNP Government turning its face away from those struggling with the cost of living crisis. An SNP Government is out of ideas, out of vision and out of time. The country is crying out for change, and it is Labour that will deliver the change that Scotland needs. Thank you, Ms Bailey. I now call on Murdo Fraser to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives around eight minutes. Please, Mr Fraser. Jackie Baillie was doing so well until she got to that final line in her speech. The annual budget debates are a highlight of the parliamentary calendar. Normally that is when we hear all the party's big hitters come along and deliver their great lines. In that respect, I think it is very disappointing that none of the candidates to be SNP leader or First Minister of Scotland, as far as I can see, even appeared in the chamber. Never mind contributed to this debate. I think we have to look forward to hearing speeches from them all setting out their vision for Scotland. Never mind, because we did hear a barnstorming speech from my good friend Kenneth Gibson, who never disappoints the chamber with his colour and his energy. I would say to Mr Gibson that it is not too late. You have until Friday to attract the necessary nominations. We would welcome you putting your hat into the ring, Mr Gibson, as a nomination. There is something of a tradition around the budget process that dates back to Derek Mackay's time when he was finance secretary, because what happens is that at stage 1 the finance secretary comes along to the chamber and says, every single penny has been allocated. Not another penny can be found if Opposition parties want to spend more money. They need to tell us exactly where in the budget they would take it from. As Opposition parties, we say, what are you hiding? They say that there is not a penny to be found. Every single year, what happens is that we get to stage 3 and miraculously more money appears. There was a running joke, members will recall, about Derek Mackay's well-stuffed sofa. Mr Swinney is not disappointed this year, because he has come up with an extra £125 million in Barnett consequentials. Thanks to the UK Government, and he has brought that money forward, he says, for more money for teachers. We are still not clear, and if you can clarify this in his response, that would be very helpful. Does that mean that a new offer is to be made to the teaching union? Or is this just money backing up the offer that was already made last week, which, of course, has already been rejected by the EIS? If Mr Swinney could confirm that point when he responds, that would be very helpful. The overall picture in relation to the budget is that we have a record block grant from Westminster in the current financial year. Despite the increase in inflation, the Fraser Valder Institute has said that the budget for the coming year is more or less protected against inflation. That was before the extra money came forward. We have a Barnett formula that delivers more than £2,000 per head of population additional spending here in Scotland compared to the UK average. That is extra money coming to Scotland thanks to the union dividend, and we should never forget that. A budget is, as a number of members have made clear about choices. We set out at stage 1 our alternative approach. We would do things differently. The national care service, an estimated to cost £1.3 billion over the next five years, is something that we would scrap. I do not know where Emma Harper has been, but four committees of this Parliament have produced reports slamming the plan for a national care service and pointing out the weaknesses in it. Even a candidate to be First Minister, Ash Regan, on the SNP benches, is calling for a rethink. We have a growing consensus on all the Opposition parties, and even a candidate for First Minister is saying that it is time to stop the plan for a national care service. Good does not add up, and that would free up the resources to spend elsewhere, for example, on local government. There is a more fundamental point about the size of the budget. Fiscal devolution means that the amount of money that the Scottish Government has to spend is directly tied to the relative performance of the Scottish tax base compared to the rest of the UK. We know that, since 2014, the growth of the Scottish economy has been, on average, one-half of the rate of the UK, as a whole, a point that I made to Mr Mason earlier. If we had at least matched UK growth, we would have hundreds of millions of pounds more to spend on public services than we currently do. Tackling economic underperformance must be a priority for this Government. I was very pleased to see another candidate to be First Minister of Scotland, the current finance secretary Kate Forbes, who was saying in the newspapers at the weekend that she used to put a rescue plan for the Scottish economy at the heart of our leadership campaign. The current finance secretary is saying that we need a rescue plan to save the economy from her own Government that has been in power for the last 16 years. You couldn't make it up, Presiding Officer. That's what the current finance secretary is saying. Despite the announcement today on more money for teachers pay that we still need to get clarification on, what is happening to local government is that core funding is being cut in real terms. We heard from a number of members across the chamber about what the real term impact of that will be, as councils have to set their budgets in the coming days and weeks. Sarah Boyack talked about the impact on the community that she represents. Miles Briggs talked about cuts in home-to-school transport, cuts in the outdoor education. Stephen Kerr talked about the possibility of four swimming pools in Falkirk closing. Others talked about cutting recycling centre hours. Pam Duncan-Glancy talked about cuts to the third sector in Glasgow and increasing charges. That is coming from every single council in Scotland. Even SNP council leaders are revolting at the prospect of what the Government is going to do to them in cutting their spending. The finance secretary talked about the child payment, and the child payment is welcome, as Liz Smith said. We have welcomed it, but we have to look at what else the budget will deliver for those who are disadvantaged. If at the same time as there is a child payment, councils are cutting breakfast clubs for disadvantaged children. They are cutting free swimming lessons for young people who therefore cannot learn to swim. They are closing libraries and arts programmes. That is no way to help the disadvantaged. What the Government is doing is giving with one hand and taking away with the other in this budget. Mr Swinney mentioned the social contract. He mentioned the fact that there are services in Scotland available free and are not available elsewhere in the UK. That is true insofar as it goes. The problem is that those free services are rationed. NHS dentistry is free in Scotland, but it is impossible to find an NHS dentist who will give you an appointment. I had a letter this morning from a constituent in Kirkcaldy, making exactly that point to me and blaming on Humza Yousaf yet another candidate to be First Minister. Higher education is free, but, thanks to the SNP cap on numbers, many talented youngsters as Liz Smith and Stephen Kerr said earlier simply cannot get a place at university. We have free parking at hospitals, but it is often impossible to get a space. We have free bus travel for young people, but bus services are being cut across the country, so there are no buses for them to travel on. That is not a record to be proud of, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, this budget does nothing for the economy. It is not the rescue plan that the finance secretary has called for. It does not deliver the 75 per cent cut in rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that apply south of the border to the same businesses that are reacting in horror at the moment to the introduction of the ruinous deposit return scheme, yet another calamity from this Government. The budget delivers higher taxes and savage cuts to council funding, and as councils meet in the next few days and weeks to slash services, to close libraries, to close swimming pools, to cut leisure centres, to cut breakfast clubs and to cut funding to the third sector, it is clear that Mr Swinney and his Government have to take responsibility for all those cuts, and that is why we cannot support this budget this afternoon and will vote against it. I now call on Deputy First Minister John Swinney to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government, and if you could take us to decision time, please, that would be great. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me begin with the remarks that Miles Briggs opened his speech with in a generous welcome to the chamber, to James Dornan. I associate myself very much with the welcome back to the chamber of James Dornan, but Miles Briggs did so in a spirit of generosity that is necessary and appropriate in a Parliament. Frankly, we need a bit more of that in this Parliament, and I want to commend Miles Briggs for that welcome. I add my words of welcome to James Dornan. It is lovely to see him back in the Parliamentary Chamber. There are a few points of detail, if I can put it as mildly as that, that I would like to correct from the statements that have been made by colleagues. Douglas Lumsden mustered up the motivation that he would have to vote against this budget because of the cut that has been made to the men's shed movement. I can assure Parliament that the men's shed movement has been offered the same amount of funding in the next financial year that they were given in this financial year, so there is no cut there. Mr Lumsden has just lost one of his reasons for voting against this budget. The second reason that Mr Lumsden gave was about the condition of school buildings. When this Government came to office in 2007, 63 per cent of pupils in Scotland were being taught in good or satisfactory school buildings. That is the school estate survey, 63 per cent. I remember the former Presiding Officer when he was a Labour spokesperson, lecturing me in 2007 that not a brick would be built by the SNP under our school building programme. Not a brick were his words. Now, over 90 per cent of school pupils are being educated in good or satisfactory school buildings. There is another excuse from Douglas Lumsden, just removed, about his ability to support the budget at decision time. A number of members have commented on the situation in relation to funding for culture and the arts, particularly Sarah Boyack, who tried to intervene on me in this point in the debate in stage 1. I was unable to take her intervention. The difficulty-facing arts and cultural organisations is of a perfect storm, where there are challenges in the public finances, in lottery income and in the purchasing of tickets and financial support to cultural organisations because of the cost of living crisis. That is all coming together. I have to be candid with Parliament. The Government cannot solve all of those challenges. That is why I have intervened to the extent that I have today. There was no cut being made to arts and cultural organisations in the Government's budget. We are asking Creative Scotland to use its reserves to provide stability, but we have put new money in there to ensure that those reserves can be used to enhance provision and to provide some of that respite in the perfect storm that is being experienced by the arts and cultural organisations. The Government will continue to act in that fashion wherever we can, of course. Sarah Boyack, I very much appreciate the Deputy First Minister taking intervention. If we had the time to debate this, we would, but there are other things that the Scottish Government could do, like tourist visit or levy. It does not fix everything, but it is a modest change that could be brought if councils want to. I will send him the report of my culture round table in October, because there were some very good practical suggestions made by the sector. I welcome that. I know that the Minister of Culture is happy to engage with Sarah Boyack on that point. On the tourism visitor levy, the legislative provisions are being prepared for that to be introduced to Parliament. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation on that point relatively shortly. I am sure that a measure of that type, which will empower local authorities, will be warmly welcomed by all sides of the Parliamentary Chamber, a bit like the parking levy legislation, which was so warmly welcomed by the Conservatives. Emma Roddick, I thought, made a very, very significant point in the debate. When she highlighted the amount of money that the Government is spending in Scotland to mitigate the welfare policies of the United Kingdom Government, she put it into perhaps common parlance by illustrating that the total amount of money that the Scottish Government spends on mitigating UK Government welfare policies amounts to 38 times the cost of a referendum. So we could have 38 referendums, the thing that they banged on about in exchange for the welfare cuts that are being inflicted on the people of Scotland as a consequence of the UK Government. I am very grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. While we are on the subject of measuring things by the amount of referendum costs, can I remind him that he proposed earlier to expend twice as much on a referendum as he has been the entirety of the 200,000 sufferers of long Covid budget, and this budget does nothing to them? We are spending £19 billion in the national health service with a £1 billion increase in this one year because we have taken the tough decisions on tax. Part of the difficulty and the challenge that lies before me, not least in the balancing of the budget this year, is the competing propositions that we hear from different sides of the chamber. Liz Smith, for example, demanded that I spend much more of the budget on supporting the productive end of the economy, which she defined as high and middle income earners, ignoring the fact that those individuals benefit from the social contract of early learning and childcare, free personal care, free prescriptions, free ITS and no tuition fees for their children should they go to a Scottish University. Pam Duncan Glancy, who said that there was nothing in this budget whatsoever to tackle inequality, managed to skate past the £450 million that the Government is spending on the Scottish child payment. That is an illustration of the fact that the Conservatives want to undermine the budget by not supporting the agenda, the progressive tax agenda that we are taking forward. The Labour Party does not want to support us in our journey to try to tackle inequality by measures such as the child payment. That illustrates just the scale of the absurdity of the propositions that I am facing here today. I thank the Deputy First Minister for giving way. There is no absurdity whatsoever in many of the statistics that the forecasters have set out about the need for Scotland to have far more higher-paid jobs so that we are improving productivity and attracting people to come to Scotland and to live and work in terms of all the things that they have to provide. There is no absurdity in that, because we desperately need that increase in the tax take and the productivity so that we are able to do far more things. Has Liz Smith not read the Scottish Fiscal Commission's report on the budget and the tax projections, in which it makes very clear that the income earnings growth in Scotland projected over the next five years is a source of great encouragement? Why can't the Conservatives welcome that as an indication of the progress that has been made here in Scotland? Of course, much of that gets to the heart of the choices that this Government has made in the budget. In approving this budget, the Government believes that we are investing in Scotland now and in the future. The decisions of this Government, created in partnership with our colleagues in the Scottish Green Party, have created a tax and benefit system in Scotland considerably more progressive than that in the rest of Great Britain. Scottish reforms to the income tax and benefits system are set to raise the incomes of households with children by around £2,000 per year on average. Those are not my words. Those are the words, Jackie Baillie, of the independent institute of fiscal studies. They are a vindication of the policy decisions that we have taken to advance that agenda. Anyone who votes against the budget today is voting against the substantial steps that this Government has taken to use the powers of this Parliament to make Scotland a more progressive country. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for Government. Given that he is quoting the IFS in its report on the budget, it states very clearly that, compared to 2009-10, local government funding is 5 per cent lower per person. If you strip out ring-fencing, that is 8 per cent lower. Does he recognise that analysis and what difference does the announcement made today make to that analysis? We have been around the houses several times this afternoon. The first point that I made to Mr Johnson is that he has, in any way, obliterated from his recollection the decade of austerity that we have suffered at the hands of the Conservative Government. We have been wrestling with that all the way through. The second point is that local authority funding. I know that there is a great debate about ring-fencing, but I have just announced a budget settlement that increases local authority budgets by £790 million for the forthcoming year. Why cannot that be welcomed by the Labour Party in the course of this debate? The impact—yes, I will give way to Mr Fraser. I am very grateful to Ms Winnie for giving way. Can I just get some clarity on this point from him? Is the extra money going to local councils to support teachers' pay? Is that reinforcing the offer that has already been made to the teaching unions, which has already been rejected by the EIS, or is it there to support a fresh offer? There is the Government's contribution to the existing offer that has been put on the table to local authorities. I make the plea today. Mr Fraser can bang on all he wants about the teachers' pay deal, but what suggestion is Mr Fraser offering today about how much money we should put on the table for that deal and where should it come from? Mr Fraser has spent £1 billion this afternoon, and he has not come up with one sentence about where the money is coming from. Mr Fraser has got the brass neck to talk about leadership elections. He failed in every leadership election that he went in to get the Conservative party, just like he has failed in every single election to try to defeat me and Perch are North because I have beaten him in every single living time. The budget changes that I have announced today respond to the points put to me by political parties and stakeholders. Today is the day when Parliament must decide. Is Parliament prepared to put the finance in place to pay the Scottish child payment? Is Parliament prepared to put the resources in place to support the transition to net zero? Is Parliament prepared to put increased resources into health, education and policing to meet the needs of the public? The Government is prepared to do that in partnership with our Green Party colleagues. The challenge to the Opposition parties is whether they can recognise the scale of the challenge that we face and support the budget, or are they going to posture with no answers to the issues that we face as a society? I am proud to commend this budget to the chamber, and I urge all Members to support it.