 Fyelig cyffrines. Thank you minister and members, that concludes our statement. The next item of business is a debate on stage 1 of the budget and I would invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their requests to speak buttons now and I call on Derek Mackay to speak too and to move the motion. I'm delighted to lead this debate on the principles of the budget bill for 2017-18. Undoubtedly, a bill of huge importance to Scotland and also a test of the maturity of this Parliament. I look to seek Parliament's approval of spending plans that will have a positive impact on our economy, our public services, our communities and our environment plans that will be supported. For the first time by income tax proposals made under the powers devolved to us by the Scotland Act 2016. I also welcome the finance committee's report on the draft budget and the Government will of course respond fully to the report before stage 3, but I can offer some initial reflections in this debate. I welcome the committee's recognition that the 2017-18 budget is fundamentally different and more complex, and I look forward to the work of the budget process review group. The review group will consider the impact of the chancellor's announcement to alter the timing of the UK budget, and I share the committee's view that the UK Government should provide clarity on their autumn budget plans as soon as possible. I have raised this matter with the chancellor, with the full support of the finance ministers of the other devolved administrations. It will also reflect on the committee's comments on transparency with regard to the operation of the fiscal framework and the associated forecasts. I now turn to the principles of the bill and to my engagement with other political parties. The Government's budget plans are focused on stabilising and growing our economy, empowering our communities, protecting our environment, promoting equality and improving our public services. Our plans have been framed by the wider economic and political factors that have been emerging such as the impact of the Brexit vote and by our programme for government. We remain totally committed to that programme for government. Jackie Baillie says that he wants to grow the economy. Why then has he cut the budget of his main economic development agency by 48 per cent? I will come to Scottish Enterprise. The context in which we are operating is with a chancellor who continues to apply restrictions and constraints to our public finances, but we have acted positively investing in our country. We will use our taxation powers in a fair and balanced way, in a way that focuses on taxing in terms of proportionate to the ability to pay. We propose to protect low and middle-income taxpayers at a time of rising inflation by freezing the basic rate of income tax. Unlike the UK Government, we propose not to give a real terms tax cut for higher-rate taxpayers, providing stability and continuity for the public and taxpayers at a time of considerable economic uncertainty. I recognise that this is a Parliament of minorities where compromise and finding consensus is a necessity. We know that there is more of a link between Scotland's economic performance and the revenues that we have available to spend on our public services. That is why stability and stimulating economic growth is so important to the Government. We will deliver measures such as the £500 million Scottish growth scheme, more investment in higher and further education, new investment in innovation and investment hubs and, of course, £4 billion investment in infrastructure across transport, public services, affordable housing and digital infrastructure. We also propose to reduce the business rates poundage, expand the small business bonus scheme, lift 100,000 properties out of rates altogether and expand rural and renewable reliefs. That budget will help us to tackle climate change, including through the national priority status that we will attach to energy efficiency. At a time of significant challenge in our economy, that is a budget that will support jobs and lay the foundations for future growth, economic growth that must be inclusive and sustainable. We have made it clear that education is this Government's number one priority. We propose to invest £1.6 billion in higher and further education, continuing the provision of free education and maintaining 116,000 full-time college places. We are maintaining investment in skills and training, increasing the number of modern apprenticeships as well as creating our new skills fund. We are maintaining the £50 million attainment Scotland fund and investing an additional £120 million to go directly to our schools to tackle the attainment gap in Scotland. We also plan to provide £60 million for the first phase of work to expand early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours by the end of this Parliament. Overall, a package of measures that place equality of opportunity at the heart of this Government's approach to Scotland's economy. I have said before that I believe that this budget provides a strong settlement proposal for local government, including the additional funding for educational attainment, increased capital resources and increased revenues from council tax. That budget provides real-term protection for front-line policing, a real-terms increase in total funding to the health service, and increases to front-line NHS budgets being invested in primary care, community care, social care and mental health. I have been listening very carefully to the other parties in this Parliament across the political spectrum on both tax and spend. I have been guided into negotiations in good faith in order to build the consensus that this country needs. I particularly welcome the constructive approach taken by the Green Party. It has asked me to consider changes to our proposals on income tax and to provide additional funding for local government. My latest assessments of the financial position this year and our projections for 2017-18 have enabled me to identify an additional £100 million of resource funding and £30 million of capital funding that could be provided through central government resources. That will be funded through the use of the budget exchange mechanism, updated projections of the Scottish Government contribution that is required to bring the NDR pool into balance and a reduction in the anticipated cost of borrowing repayments next year. In my discussions with the Green Party, I have made it clear that, at a time of economic uncertainty, rising inflation and rising prices, this Government does not think that it would be right to increase tax rates. No party in this Parliament has a majority, however, the considerable mandate that we were given at the election means that I believe that it would not be right for there to be a fundamental change to the proposals that we put to the people of Scotland. However, having considered the proposals that were put to me, I can confirm that this Government will lodge a Scottish rate resolution that sets the same tax rates as originally proposed but which applies a cash freeze on the higher rate threshold. That change protects, okay? I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Yesterday, the members of commerce warned that to create a tax differential income tax was, in their words, highly dangerous for the Scottish economy. Why has he listened to the Green Party before the voice of Scottish business? Our proposals are fair and balanced, and what some of the business community was concerned about was the prospect of higher tax rates. That is not what this Government is proposing. Under our proposals, we protect basic rate taxpayers and ensure that 99 per cent of taxpayers on the same income this financial year will not be paying any more income tax in the next financial year but will generate an additional £29 million of revenues in 2017-18. The proposals that I am putting before Parliament balanced the need to raise additional revenues whilst asking the highest earners, the top 10 per cent of earners to forgo a significant tax cut at this time of UK Government austerity. People covered by this higher rate, the income forgone amounts to £7.70 a week, less than the cost of a single prescription in England. However, in return for this contribution, Scottish taxpayers will continue to benefit from significant investment in our public services. Above inflation investment in the NHS, free prescriptions, free personal care, free higher education, no business rates for 100,000 small businesses and new resources to tackle inequality in the attainment gap, supporting our efforts on the environment and doubling of free childcare. In other words, the best deal for taxpayers in the whole of the UK. Patrick Harvie. I'm not a word yet. The cabinet secretary knows that the Greens believe he can go further on taxation and that people on our generous incomes could afford to pay more taxation. Can he confirm that the £29 million that he's talked about from abandoning his inflation-based increase in the higher-rate threshold will be added to the £130 million that he already spoke about and result in £160 million additional going into local government services up and down the country? Let me be clear with Parliament and with Patrick Harvie. I propose that with the support of the Scottish Green Party for all stages of this budget and the local government finance order, together with agreement to allow the Scottish rate resolution to come into a force to allocate, yes, those additional resources of £160 million to local government to be allocated through the normal formula distribution and to be spent at the discretion of individual local authorities. Once again, this Government has listened and this Government has acted. In line with the Government's commitments, I wish to make two further additions to the budget in line with the Government's priorities. My proposals already protected the police resource budget in real terms and provide additional reform funding of £36 million to continue the process of transforming the police service and meet the VAT costs imposed by UK Government ministers. The SPA in Police Scotland will shortly set out a long-term strategy for a flexible, modern and sustainable police service capable of meeting the changing nature of crime and society. Today, I can announce a further funding of £25 million within the police reform and change budget to support this new phase of transformation funded through a combination of capital and resource headroom that I judged to be available in 2017-18. More support for police in Scotland. A range of measures to support our economy were outlined in the draft budget and I have engaged further with Scottish Enterprise. I propose to provide an additional—I have got 30 seconds left. I will—well, I have spoken to Willie Rennie quite enough and it didn't amount to very much—but I propose to add an additional £35 million to Scottish Enterprise to support our economy at this time. Presiding Officer, this budget is putting the programme for government into effect, but I also believe that it responds to requests from all sides of this chamber in a reasonable and constructive way protecting health budgets, delivering a living wage for social care workers, free tuition, expanding early years provision, efforts on energy efficiency, increasing house building and supporting local services. In my draft budget, I explained that supporting it would deliver £700 million of additional spending on public services. Today, as a consequence of my proposal, that figure now increases to more than £900 million in additional spending for Scotland's public services. By any measure, this budget delivers for Scotland, for our economy, our communities and the wellbeing of our nation. I commend the principles of this bill and seek Parliament's agreement to them. I move the motion. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and I call on Kezia Dugdale to speak to and move the amendment in her name. I am pleased to move the amendment in my name. Today, this Parliament has an important decision to make, one of the most important it has ever made. We can deliver on the promises the majority of us in this chamber made to the people of Scotland at last year's election. When all but one party represented in this chamber said that we would stop the cuts to valued public services and invest in our economy instead. Or we can walk by on the other side. Walk by is teachers' struggle with fewer resources with which to educate our children. Walk by, as more and more carers are reduced to 15-minute visits to our elderly family members, or walk by as welfare advisers who support those most in need face even more cutbacks. I listened to the First Minister very carefully at lunchtime today. She said this to Ruth Davidson. She said that, given the pressures on public services as a result of Tory austerity, it would be wrong to cut taxes for the top 10 per cent. I agree. Equally, however, it would be wrong to take that Tory austerity and pass it on to the poorest Scots in the face of these public service cuts. Labour just isn't prepared to do that. I got into politics to stand up for the very people who will be hit the hardest by the SNP's cuts. I also heard the First Minister refer to Labour's position on the budget as somehow playground politics. Can I say to her that I met Derek Mackay several times throughout this budget process and I spoke to him on the phone as well. Those conversations were cordial and constructive. I know that he knows that and I know that he would agree with that. I reject completely the suggestion that the Labour Party has been playing games. We have been very clear from the offset. We have been very clear from the offset. We said that the price of our vote was no cuts to public services. The more that he bates me, the more they try to bate me to say that Labour was never serious about engaging in this budget, the more inclined I might be to say exactly what we were talking about in those meetings. The truth is that in those meetings, this finance secretary spent the first half of the meeting saying that there were no cuts and then the rest of the meeting saying, how much do you need to get rid of those cuts? We won't do it after all. Completely duplicitous. The finance secretary said to me that he had no mandate to increase taxes. He said that he had no mandate in his manifesto to increase taxes. I said to him that he had no mandate for those cuts to public services either. He has given to the Green Party today to move away from his manifesto commitment on the top rate of income tax. He has abandoned that principle stick into his manifesto and it leaves him open to the accusation why not use that 50p top rate of tax? You have moved away from your manifesto once. Do it again in the name of protecting vital public services. Labour, throughout this process, who have been the ones honest enough to say, if we want high-quality universal public services, we have to talk about how we pay for them and crucially who pays for them. That is why we have tabled an amendment to use the tax powers of this Parliament to stop the SNP's millions of pounds worth of cuts to local schools and care of the elderly. Services that are the very fabric of our communities across the country and services that the Labour Party will always fight for. The Labour's amendment is not just about stopping the cuts, it is about growing the economy. For Scotland's economy to thrive, we need strong public services. That means good, well-funded schools giving young people the skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future. It means investing in the infrastructure projects essential to businesses across the country. In this globalised world, if we are to fight for our futures, we need to be able to attract that investment into Scotland. We are competing with the world's major economies for investment and jobs. Nations like China and India are investing to grow their economy. Scotland must and should do the same. The SNP's budget does the opposite. The employers looking for a high-skilled, well-educated workforce will go elsewhere. If we do not invest in the greatest natural resource that this country has, it is people. We know that the SNP's constant threat of another independence referendum is not good for our economy either. It certainly is not good for our future prosperity. If Scotland were to ever leave the UK, we knew that it would be devastating to public services that we all value. That is why Labour will not and cannot back any SNP plan to impose another referendum on the people of Scotland. There is a different path available to us because of the new powers that this Parliament has, powers that so many of us fought for. It is our responsibility to put them to good use because this Parliament does not have to be a conveyor belt for Tory austerity. That is why we have come to this chamber with an alternative to the SNP's millions of pounds worth of cuts. In fact, we are the only party to have tabled any amendments to this budget, but I make no apologies for saying that Labour will not vote for an SNP budget that imposes millions of pounds worth of cuts on local services like schools and care for the elderly. We just won't do it. It would be a betrayal of the voters who sent us here in the first place. I know the impact of the SNP's cuts. No thank you from my own work in Edinburgh. I want to make a particular appeal to Patrick Harvie here. He has campaigned against the austerity of his entire political life, and he has spent the months since the Government published its draft budget warning about the impact of the SNP's cuts on communities across Scotland. I agree with him. All I ask is that he maintains his opposition to the cuts to local services like schools and care for the elderly. I will give away in one moment to Patrick Harvie, because here is what the Green Manifesto called for—a 60p top rate of tax, a 43p threshold on the top rate of income tax. Those were the lofty progressive ambitions of the Greens, and today they have settled to be the fig leaf that the nationalists so desperately want and desperately need. I am happy to give it. Kezia Dugdale knows fine well that if every party in a Parliament of minorities was just to say, our manifesto or nothing, then we would be failing the people of Scotland. Does she not recognise that what we have achieved, unlike what Labour has achieved, is an additional 12 million plus for Edinburgh city council, for her city council, for public services that she is concerned about this very taxi yet? Kezia Dugdale. No, I do not accept that. Can I say to Patrick Harvie very clearly that the tax change is announced? Order, please. Order, please. The tax change is announced, Mr Harvie. The tax change is announced today, constitutes 29 million pounds worth of new money. That is one tenth of the money that we need to stop the cuts, and it is one thirtieth of the amount of money that your manifesto said was needed to stop those cuts. To accept that anything less, then bold use of this Parliament's tax powers is an astonishing and deeply disappointing revelation from the Greens. However, let us not kid ourselves. This is not the Greens' responsibility to Parliament shining through. It is their responsibility. They have put on themselves to do nothing that might jeopardise the prospect of another divisive independence referendum. This is the truth. Nationalism first, austerity second and somewhere down their list of credentials, you might just find the environment. If the Greens vote for this budget tonight, a budget that passes Tory austerity on to Scots in the face of a better way, it will be remembered as the day the Greens abandoned any claim to be a party of the progressive left. We all remember Nicola Sturgeon, the anti-aesthetic crusader from the 2015 general election. Now she has become the minister for cuts. The nationalists who claim to be stronger for Scotland now want to weaken our public services and rip the heart out of our communities. Today all parties have the chance to back up their previous commitments with action to say to the people of Scotland that the policies that we put forward are not just to get through an election but our promises to be delivered. It is to make your mind up time, Labour stands for stopping the cuts and investing in public services. There is a better way, and I ask members to join Labour in that fight. I now call on Bruce Crawford to speak on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. The Finance and Constitution Committee recognises that this is an historic budget for Scotland. The new income tax powers combined with the previously devolved taxes means that around 40 per cent of the money that the Scottish Government spends will now come from taxation raised in Scotland. The Scottish Government's borrowing powers have also increased to a limit of £3 billion for capital spending and £1.75 billion for resource borrowing and cash management. Let me briefly summarise the committee's view on the Scottish Government's taxation and borrowing proposals. On income tax, the committee recognises that there is a wide range of views on income tax, including rates and bans in this chamber and beyond. The members of the committee were likewise unable to come to consensus on these matters. On lands and buildings transaction tax, the committee considers that it is too early to draw any definitive conclusion on the impact of the rates and bans from the available out-turn data. On Scottish landfill tax, we noted that, as with previous years, the Government's proposals is to increase the rates in line with inflation. It is a similar approach to the UK Government and is intended to address the possibility of waste tourism. On capital borrowing, the committee notes that the Government intends to utilise the maximum amount of £450 million in 2017-18. The committee notes the total drawdown of £915 million of capital borrowing powers for 2015-16 to 2017-18 due to projects being bought on balance sheet as a consequence of the ESA 10 ruling. The committee notes the impact of this drawdown on other capital projects and asks the Scottish Government to provide a full and comprehensive analysis of the use of its borrowing powers. As the committee makes clear, those new powers provide both opportunities and risks. This is because the outlook for the public finances is now much more dependent on the performance of the Scottish economy. There is now a direct incentive for the Scottish Government to grow the economy in order to increase the amount of tax that is raised in Scotland. However, the way that the fiscal framework works means that it is the performance of the Scottish economy relative to the performance of the UK economy, which matters. Scotland will only benefit if there is higher growth in per capita tax revenues in Scotland than per capita performance of receipts from the equivalent taxes in the rest of the UK. If the Scottish tax revenues per capita grow at the same rate as those in the rest of the UK, the Scottish budget is no better or worse off than it would have been prior to the devolution of the relevant taxes. Given the linkage between productivity levels and future tax revenues, one of the major challenges for the Scottish Government will be to ensure that productivity growth becomes at least as well as the rest of the UK. The chairman of the Office of Budget Responsibility explained to us that the defining puzzle of the present economic recovery has been that the productivity has grown much less quickly than historically has been the case. While that is not unique to the UK, he suggests that it is probably more pronounced. The committee has therefore asked the Scottish Government what analysis is undertaken of its options for addressing the productivity puzzle in Scotland and what opportunities the new financial powers provide to improve productivity growth. The challenge of implementing the new powers and the fiscal framework would have been challenging enough during a period of economic stability, but the committee recognises that the added uncertainty arising from the Brexit vote significantly increases that challenge. A key question for the committee is whether there will be a different impact from Brexit in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We did not hear any evidence at this stage that suggests a differential impact. However, the likelihood of rising inflation will have an impact on the Scottish Government's budget. That is due to both the declining and real-terms value of budgets and the increased costs of commitments to maintaining spending in real terms. The committee has asked what extent the Scottish Government has taken steps within the draft budget to address the potential disproportionate impact of inflationary pressures arising from Brexit on households and on lower incomes and on public services. A further significant challenge for both the committee and colleagues across the Parliament is to develop our understanding of how the fiscal framework works. The Fraser Aller Institute describes it as an exceptionally complex and opaque without precedent internationally. It potentially introduces a much higher level of uncertainty and volatility to the budget process. Our report highlights three areas. How the annual adjustment to the block grant for each of the devolved taxis are calculated, forecasts of tax revenues for each of the devolved taxis and reconciling the differences between forecasts and out-turn figures. Essentially, the annual budget is now dependent on the Barnett-determined block grant minus the adjustment for each devolved tax plus the tax revenues from each devolved tax. You see that it is quite simple, isn't it? The block grant adjustment and tax revenues are initially based on forecasts that are reconciled with out-turn figures once the data is available. The committee emphasises that, given its complexity, it is essential that there is a complete transparency on how the fiscal framework operates. It is hoped that our report on the draft budget will provide some clarity on the process. The committee also recognises that the operation of the fiscal framework is a shared responsibility between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. The committee is therefore disappointed that the chief secretary to the Treasury declined to give evidence as part of this year's budget process. We believe that it is vital that we have the opportunity to hear from the NHS Treasury Minister on the operation of the fiscal framework, and we will continue to pursue that with Her Majesty's Treasury. The committee recognises that the new powers in the fiscal framework fundamentally change the budget process. Consequently, the committee and the cabinet secretary have established a budget process review group. The committee has asked the group to consider a number of issues that arose during this year's process, including budget timing, multi-year budgeting, medium-term financial strategy and transparency and accountability. Timing issues were raised by a number of subject committees, while the impact of the proposal on the UK budget to the autumn, as has already been described by the cabinet secretary, will also need to be addressed. The committee has also asked the review group to explore the options for a more strategic approach to financial planning. Finally, the committee believes that consideration needs to be given to improving the transparency of the draft budget, as highlighted by the Fraser of Allander Institute. For example, the committee agrees with the local government and communities committee that greater transparency is required in relation to the local government allocations in the draft budget. Due to the different presentation and sets of numbers relating to local government settlement, some members were concerned about the level of financial resources available to local government in the settlement. In conclusion, I am pleased to present to Parliament a unanimous report by the Finance and Constitution Committee for consideration. In doing so, I say that this was achieved by committee members coming to a consensus through a collective approach, despite the obvious differences that existed. I therefore thank all of the members of the committee for making my job easier and the committee clerks for a professionally helpful way they approached their task. I recommend that the Finance and Constitution Committee's report on the Scottish Government's draft budget for 2017-18 to the Parliament for consideration. I call Murdo Fraser to open for the Conservatives. Please, up to nine minutes, please, Mr Fraser. I have to start my remarks with an apology. In last week's budget debate, I referred to the leader of the Green Party as Patsy Harvey. I can only apologise to Ms Harvey for this gross argument, but we know today that it is not the Greens who are the Patsies in this chamber, it is the entire SNP front bench, for they have swallowed hook, line and sinker, the Green Party's hard-left high-tax agenda. They have let Patrick Harvey pull all the strings and it will be hard-working Scottish families that suffer as a consequence. The Finance Secretary had a choice going into today's debate. He could have come with us, dropped his plans to make Scotland the highest-tax part of the United Kingdom and worked together with us to deliver an ambitious budget, focused on growing the economy, not just now. Or he could turn sharp left and embrace the anti-growth, anti-business agenda of the Green Party. What a pity! What a tragedy for Scotland that he chose to throw in his lot with a lentil munching, sandal-wearing watermelons on that side of the chamber. Mr Mackay was well warned by the business community as to the consequences of going further on tax than he originally intended. I am afraid that I cannot hear what Mr Fraser is saying, but Mr Fraser can it down just a little bit. They do not like it when they hear the truth about their budget. No, I do not, Mr Fraser. I do not like it. That is the difference. Maybe they will like this more. Yesterday, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce described a move to increase the tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK as, I quote, highly dangerous, but today he and his Government have shown contempt for the views of the Scottish business community and have demonstrated that they have zero interest in trying to help grow our underperforming economy. They might as well put a sign up at the border saying, Scotland is closed for business. I'll go ahead, Mr Rennie. Willie Rennie. I'm grateful for Mr Murdo Fraser giving way. Can I just put it into context, though, what he's talking about? As a result of the decision today, a person earning £100,000 will pay £86 more than the SNP manifesto, but will pay £2,080 less than the green manifesto. I don't think that they've given way a hell of a lot. Mr Fraser. Have it for the Liberal Democrats. The greens aren't hard left enough for Willie Rennie. He wants to go even further. The fact is that Derek Mackay had so many advantages with his budget. He's a lucky man, firstly because he had more money to play with than ever before. By his own admission, his budget is up in the coming year in real terms by some £501 million over last year. That's half a billion pounds more he has to spend than he had in the current year. We hear a lot on his budget debates from the SNP benches about Tory cuts and Westminster austerity. What their own document tells us is that, both in cash terms and real terms, their total budget is up for the coming year against the previous high point of 2010-11. When it comes to total manage expenditure, there is not a cut to be seen in this document. It is not just because of the money that he has at his disposal, which his predecessors could only dream of. Mr Mackay is a lucky man. He is lucky because he has a greater range of powers over taxation than any previous finance minister. He has a great opportunity to use those powers and those resources to build an ambitious budget, a budget for growth, a budget to expand the tax base, a budget worthy of the extensive powers at his disposal. Sadly, in place of that ambition, we have this weak, hesitant, dismal set of measures together in mounting to a budget that tells us nothing about the type of Scotland we want to see. A budget that will see local services cut while council taxes are being hiked, a budget that cuts funding even after the extra money that is put in today to the enterprise network, and a budget that reinforces reductions to college places when we should be doing the opposite, and a budget that will make Scotland the highest tax part of the United Kingdom, scaring away investment and sending out a message that the risk taker, that the wealth creator, that the entrepreneur and the successful are not welcome here, not just now. Presiding Officer, this should have been a budget to grow the economy. Our growth rates today are one-third of the UK average. Our unemployment rates are higher, our employment rates are lower and business confidence is well below the UK average. These are the key issues this budget should be addressing, but instead it simply makes matters worse. Presiding Officer, if we grow the economy, so our tax revenues will grow with it. Our own research has shown that if Scottish growth had matched UK average figures since 2007, the year that the SNP came to power here, our gross domestic product would have been £3.1 billion higher over the last 10 years. That equates to nearly £1,300 for every Scottish household. If we simply raise the proportion of higher and additional tax rate payers to the UK average, the very people that Mr Mackay wants to impose an extra tax burden upon, if we raise their proportion to the UK average, then the Scottish finances would stand to benefit to the tune of £600 million a year in extra revenue. What a difference that would make to the finance secretary's spending power. Presiding Officer, once upon a time the SNP in this chamber used to believe that it could help grow the economy by cutting taxes. The finance secretary is far too young to remember. First time round, the film genre that was the Brat Pack movies of the 1980s. If he has time, I suggest that he takes a look at the 1986 John Hughes classic, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, where a young Matthew Broderick sits in a class of bored teenagers listening to Ben Steen's economics teacher trying to explain to them the principles of the Laffer curve. Anyone seen that? Anyone? Mr Mackay has seen it. He can instruct to the finance secretary about it. I'm Mackay. Fraser very frequently mentions a Laffer curve in this place. I just want to ask him for a single peak Laffer curve with a point of inflection, whether it changes revenues with respect to rates DRBDT equals zero. Can Mr Fraser enlighten us whether he believes that we're currently in the range where DRBDT is greater than zero or less than zero and why? Or does he understand the Laffer curves or extend to sound bites and he's got no idea what he's actually talking about? Well, Mr Fraser, no. Unfortunately, I couldn't hear Mr Mackay's question. That was a hilarity, a hilarity in general at the very time. Mr Fraser, Mr Fraser, sit down. I want to hear the debate and that goes for the front benches too, not that I'm in particular, Mr Swinney. Mr Mackay wants a lesson on the Laffer curve. All he needs to do is ask the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, who was never done talking about the benefits of cutting taxes month after month, year after year, in this very chamber, the former First Minister lectured us on the benefits of cutting corporation tax in order to grow the economy. For more than a decade it was the central tenant of SNP economic theory. The question is, where was Derek Mackay when all the rest of us were being bored rigid by his former boss on these topics? Why wasn't he listening? The finance secretary might not want to remember, but in election after election Ian his colleague stood on a tax-cutting platform. Alex Salmond at least understood how economics works. Who would have thought it, Presiding Officer, that we on these benches would be saying, bring back Alex? Presiding Officer, this budget today represents a huge missed opportunity. It fails to address the problem of our underperforming economy. It cuts support to local government, which means that services that are being cut at a time when the tax is going up, and it sends out a message that Scotland will be the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. We will vote against this budget. It is a dismal and ambitious budget that damages Scotland. There is now only one party that champions the Scottish economy. That is on the side of Scottish business, on the side of taxpayers, on the side of hard-working families, and that is this party. If we stand alone in this chamber on their side, then we do so with regret. Thank you. I know Patrick Harvie up six minutes plus a little, Mr Harvie. In between the name calling and the laughable curve, the one thing that we have learned is that the Conservatives want to slash taxes for the wealthy and are deeply against cuts to public services. They used to accuse us of being the ones who believed in a magic money tree. I think very clearly that it is the Conservatives who are in that way. In a period of minority government, I think that it falls to the responsibility of all parties to exercise influence for the good, to make a meaningful difference. I think that that is a healthy kind of Parliament. I even think that it is good for ministers to know that the votes aren't in the bag when they turn up to work. I think that they need to work on the votes, convince people by making compromise. Government does need to compromise, and today the Greens have achieved the biggest budget compromise in the history of devolution in Scotland. We began that discussion. Presiding Officer. I want you, Mr Harvie, as well, please. I am grateful, Presiding Officer, because I know in particular colleagues on the Labour bench who are keen to hear what we have to say about that debate. We began that discussion recognising that there was a big gap between green and SNP propositions. On tax, clearly we had the most radical proposition in the election last year, cutting tax for low earners. Everybody on a low or average income would see their tax go down and moving to progressive taxes as well. Investing in public services, giving local councils the financial flexibility that we believe they need. We have a long list of other measures from social security changes to low-carbon infrastructure. Even before the draft budget was published, Greens had been making progress, with the Government committing to roll out the healthier, wealthy children initiative saving money for households that are hard pressed at the moment, committing to a young carers allowance and protecting people in Scotland from the UK Government's sanctions regime. That is the difference that the Green approach was making even before the draft budget was published, a will in a moment. As for the package that has been proposed by the Government on local government, there is clearly a wide range of interpretations. The Government rolls in a lot of extra budgets that we do not think should be counted as part of the core local government settlements. Others compare the draft budget at the beginning of the financial year with how the out turn was at the last one. We do not think that either is appropriate. Spice, our independent researchers compared the budget this year with the budget at the beginning of last year in coming up with a cut of £166 million. We set out practical ways in which the Scottish Government could remove that cut, reverse that cut and achieve investment in public services. It is very clear from what I have been told by the cabinet secretary that the proposition today does not take away from what would be normal in-year financial allocations. The cuts that are under consideration around the country at local council level, as I said earlier today, are things that none of us should be willing to impose on our local councils. Greens regard it as unacceptable, and the basis of this compromise is not, as Kears tried to say, £29 million. The basis of this compromise is an additional £160 million being added to the unring-fenced local government allocation, the biggest single budget concession since devolution, meaningful differences in local communities up and down the country. Maybe Kears-Dougdale would like to tell us now how she thinks that £12 million in Edinburgh ought to be spent reversing dangerous cuts. Kears-Dougdale. I think that it is important as a matter of clarity when Patrick Harvey has struck the deal that he has that is very clear to the chamber just exactly how much of the money he has secured has come from the taxation. Is it or is it not £29 million? Patrick Harvey. I'm very clear that the Scottish Government have given far less ground than I think they should, far less ground than I think they could on progressive taxation. The reality, though, is a £160 million additional going into the unring-fenced local government allocation. I believe that there is a strong and unanswerable case for more progressive taxation. The SNP cite its manifesto from 2016, a manifesto that, by the way, included no pledge on what the higher rate of income tax ought to be. It pledged to freeze—I've given away an intervention already. It gave a pledge on the basic rate, it gave no pledge on the higher rate. Even a modest 1 per cent increase on the higher rate would have generated £80 million. A small drop in the threshold for the higher rate would have generated an additional £80 million. The fact that the Scottish Government found this money in other ways is not what I would have wished. This is not a budget that I would have written, but nobody who cares about protecting public services in Scotland can look at that £160 million of extra investment and say, no thanks, I'd rather just keep ranting and make no difference in people's lives. Can I say to colleagues on the Labour benches with respect to their position, how much more could we achieve if this constructive approach had been taken by all opposition parties, we could have pushed the Scottish Government to go even further? As it happens, the Greens are the only political party that are managed to persuade the Government to make any changes at all. As for their amendment today, which Kez Duckdale wants to pretend is a budget amendment, she knows very well that the budget itself cannot be amended except by the Government. Even if we thought that low-income households, as she wants to, should be paying more tax, a basic rate increase would affect everybody above the personal allowance, and Kez Duckdale knows it very well. Even if we thought that low-income households should be footing the bill, there would clearly be no majority for their recent amendment tonight. It is a pretext for them to say to what remains of their fan base how much they hate the SNP. What has that approach achieved? Has Labour posturing saved a single council service? Has it prevented a single cut? Even worse than this, they are reduced to an act of desperation with Labour activists today spending a grumpy afternoon online trolling the Greens pretending that we voted for a tax cut on aviation that has not even devolved yet. I can be clear that when that APD cut does come up for a vote, the Government knows that the Greens are making the most consistent case against their policy and will continue to do so. Greens have made more of a difference in the real world in this one budget debate than Labour have made in 10 years of opposition. I think that it is a position that we should be proud of, and I know that green activists around the country will be putting in place those budget changes as soon as possible. Paul Willie Rennie, a generous six minutes, Mr Rennie. We have all listened to Patrick Harvie a lot over the years. We listened to him at the last election, and at the last election he promised us a greener and bolder Parliament. After today, it is not green and bold, it is grey and timorous. However, we should no longer listen to lectures from Patrick Harvie about austerity and compassion after today's concession. I was going to begin with a compliment to the finance secretary. I know that he does not like it, but he might feel uncomfortable. Everybody praises John Swinney for what he managed to achieve over his many years as finance secretary. However, I thought that he had an easy time. I thought that he had, in the first Parliament, the Conservatives, desperate to support them about every budget in order to do down the Labour Party. That was relatively simple. I was quite successful in support of him, absolutely. We had a majority, so he did not really have many hurdles to overcome. However, now, in this Parliament, it is a tougher task. I think that Derek Mackay has done pretty well. I think that he has done pretty well, because I found him a very reasonable finance secretary. He was working in partnership. We had numerous meetings over many, many weeks, numerous telephone calls, so the discussions have been constructive. I think that, as a finance secretary, he is outshone John Swinney. The problem is that the SNP has lectured us, too, about austerity. I remember the First Minister going to Westminster to London to lecture everybody about how Scotland was a more compassionate, open, generous country, and if only we could follow Scotland's model. However, today they have turned down an opportunity to invest £500 million in education, to invest £200 million in mental health. Something that everybody in this chamber tells me, they support wholeheartedly, but today they have turned it down. They have also turned down the opportunity to invest significantly in our colleges, in our schools and to clear up the mess from the Government of the Police Service. The fact that we have a significant problem of more than £200 million that Alex Neil has admitted with the Police Service has turned down all of that today in a pursuit of an agenda that is contrary to what they promised that they would deliver. We put forward a costed, reasonable, compromise package in this budget, but they could not even accept that either. They could not accept a package that was going to be bold, but recognised that everybody in this Parliament was a minority. They could not even accept that compromise package. I think that the SNP has missed a big opportunity. I think that they are hollow with their promises, and we will cast a harsher eye over them in future years when they promise to make a big change to Scottish society, when they promise that we are going to get Scottish education revolutionised. We will cast a harsher eye on that, because what we have seen also in recent months is that the situation has got worse. The response to Brexit, what has that response been? To carry on exactly as they had said before Brexit. No changes whatsoever. No further investment in our economy through investing in the skills of the people. No further investment in mental health. No further investment in the critical bits that will turn our economy round. None of that has changed. Despite all the lectures about Brexit and how harsh it is, this Government has not lifted a finger to do anything about it at all. Any idea that this party is a party of the economy has been blown apart today. I would say that the biggest incredulity I have is for the Conservatives' claims. The Conservatives who stand up here and lecture everybody else about the tax rates when they realise now that today's deal from the Green Party is delivering for somebody earning £100,000, £86 more, and they think that that is outrageous, but then they say, in the same breath, that they condemn any cuts to public services. If you believe in investing in public services, you have to will the means. You have to make the difference to the tax rates, but the reality is that the Conservatives will say one thing, one place, and something else, somewhere else. That is why they have no credibility whatsoever on the economy. Today is a big missed opportunity to have a budget that will turn this country into a more liberal and economically strong country, an opportunity to meet the challenges of Brexit, an opportunity to invest in other people, to get the Scottish education system back up to the best in the world again. All those opportunities have been thrown away by this timorous and grey deal. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. I now call Kate Forbes to be followed by Liz Smith. Ms Forbes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I should first start and say I'm the PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution. Back in May, Ruth Davidson declared that being a strong opposition did not mean, and I quote, "...shouting louder or emoting harder or a more frenzied gnashing of teeth", which is almost prophetic because that is precisely what the opposition has become in this debate. To continue the theme with other speakers, in this chamber we have a Parliament of Minorities. Whilst the SNP still has more MSPs than the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party put together were all minorities, were parties elected by the people of Scotland on different manifestos with differing policies, plans and priorities, but with one job to do. That is to govern at all times for the people of this country. The single most important function of this Parliament and this Government is to pass a budget. How we do it is a mark of maturity, which is distinctly lacking in this process so far. To deliver that budget, there is both a responsibility on every party to genuinely suggest credible ideas and an opportunity for every party to actually achieve something. Labour has not a single thing to show in this budget for all their noise because it was just that, noise and politics, a bit like their amendment today. They have a £2 billion wish list of budget demands and will make people earning more than £11,500 pay for those demands. That is not fair. That is shifting the burden of Tory austerity on to working-class people. John Scott. For suggestions, how the form of words that health board recruiters should use to attract and recruit consultants and health workers from elsewhere in the United Kingdom when moving from England, Wales and Northern Ireland will cost those workers money to do so under those tax proposals? Ms Forbes. My response to that would be twofold. The first thing that I would say is that one of the unhelpful mistruths that have been spread is that people's taxes in this country of Scotland will rise under those proposals. 99 per cent of Scottish taxpayers will not pay a penny more. The second thing that I would say to the member is that, if you move to this country, you get free childcare, you get free prescription charges, you get free education for your young people and you get free personal care for the elderly. If that is not an attractive proposition, I do not know what is. The Tories have spun such a relentlessly narrow narrative of higher taxes that I would argue that it does more to scare off investors than this SNP Government does. The Tories are incredibly miserable about Scotland's future and the Tories talk about tax because they have nothing else to talk about except for the Brexit shambles. We know how the Tories would balance the books. They would cut tax for the richest to cut services for the most vulnerable and yet the books do not balance. Under the Tories plans, somebody in the additional rate will save approximately £6 extra a week and yet spend over £8 on a single prescription, it does not add up. Back in May, the First Minister said that she would work hard to build consensus and partnership, but she would not do it at the cost of inertia in this Parliament and despite the apathy and the lack of engagement on both sides of the chamber from the Labour Party and the Tories, we still come today with a budget for the people of Scotland. The budget recognises the pressure on our public services so we will not cut taxes for the top 10 per cent of earners at the cost of care for our elderly, education for our children and services for our society. The budget recognises that real people still face real tough financial times so we will not raise income tax. Here is the new... Yes. Daniel Johnson, please wait to be calm. Please explain to me why it is so unthinkable to use income tax while her party is more than happy to force councils to put up council tax and that is perfectly justifiable. Ms Forbes. My response to that would be quite simple. My response to that is that the news flashes that real people out there in the real world who are not interested in our political rhetoric are struggling to make ends meet. Labour's plans would mean that those earning over £11,500 would start paying tax. That is shifting tax for the working class people to pay them more. We have not increased taxes, but I want to close with a reminder of what other parties may find themselves voting against tonight. On saying no to this budget, you are saying no to over £100 million in digital infrastructure and delivering superfast broadband. You are saying no to over £470 million of direct capital investment to deliver 50,000 affordable homes. No to £47 million to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax. No to continue dualling of the A9 and improving the A82. No to £1 billion on mental health. If you can tell the people of Scotland that you said no to these things, then you are a braver person than I am. Thank you. I call Liz Smith. Do we follow by Ashton and Liz Smith, please? Thank you. Can I set the points that I want to make in this debate in the context of the three conclusions that were drawn on page 11 of the Education and Skills Committee draft budget report that relates to higher education. Those conclusions not only reflect the concerns that were raised by Audit Scotland in its 2016 report into higher education, the evidence that is submitted to the Parliament's Audit Committee and the recent statements that have been made by University Scotland, but they also raise serious questions about the criteria by which the Scottish Government is making its judgment call on higher education policy. In the first of those conclusions on page 11, the committee says that it is unclear how a cash funding reduction of 1.3 per cent in higher education resource matches a commitment to protect core research and teaching grants. However, that concern has been dismissed by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills when he says that the Scottish Government was protecting cash terms, teaching and research because the capital budget was increasing by £20 million. Furthermore, he claims that the recent changes that have allowed universities to increase their revenues and that, in turn, has obviously helped them to increase their reserves and increased profitability. However, it is not right at all for the Cabinet Secretary to argue that he is protecting budgets on the basis that it is possible for universities to make up the financial shortfalls by raising more of the money on their own via private means. The irony is, of course, that the Scottish Government's changes are because Scottish universities are now able to charge higher fees from risk to the UK students. It lays bare the fact that the percentage share of total sector income given by the Government by the Scottish Funding Council is constantly falling from 41 per cent of the total sector in academic year 2056 to 34 per cent in academic year 2014-15. It is what has led Alistair Sim and, indeed, Audit Scotland to make the point that, for publicly funded activity, universities are being funded below cost just around the 90 per cent mark. So, when the Scottish Government claims that it is protecting the core teaching grant, the research grant and also for widening access and free higher education, it is doing so without explaining the true context of the sector. That is the main point of the committee's second conclusion on page 11 when it says that, despite the legitimate expectation for private bodies to augment core provision of services with its own income, the Scottish Government has not produced a satisfactory rationale to explain its budget choices. That, Presiding Officer, I would suggest to simply not good enough. But let me deal with the most... Yes, of course. Mr Swinney. I'm grateful to Liz Smith for giving way. The long and the short of the point she's making is that she believes that the universities should be given more money by the Government. Now, the Conservatives have argued for a reduction in tax that would come into effect on 1 April. I know that they argue for that to be a device to grow the economy, but on 1 April we have to give a budget to the universities. How would we fund Liz Smith's increase in contribution to the universities if we've reduced the money available by cutting tax on 1 April? Liz Smith. For the simple reason that you've got half a billion pound extra, plus you know that our policy... You know exactly what our policy reaction is to that. But let... Can I just come on to one point, Mr Swinney? I'll let you get in again. Why is it that Scottish universities, University of Scotland, the Auditor General and several other experts in the field are all maintaining one after the other that this sector is not sustainably funded? I'll give way to Mr Swinney. Mr Swinney. I spent two and a half hours explaining to the committee this morning my view about why the university sector is sustainably funded, so I've dealt with that question. The point that I want to go at is the issue, the response from Liz Smith to my intervention. Liz Smith said we had £500 million which has been allocated to other areas of expenditure. So if Liz Smith wants to spend more money on the universities and she wants to cut taxes, where is the money coming from from the Conservatives to fund the universities? Liz Smith. Mr Swinney knows over a long period of time that we have supported additional money coming in from a grant. Let me finish. You know very well that we have a policy that will bring in additional money without increasing tax, without cutting college budgets which has been a policy of the SNP because we would aspire to a graduate contribution. Mr Swinney knows that. We are very happy indeed. Can I ask members not to debate across the chamber but through interventions, Mr Swinney? No, I'll give you extra time. Mr Swinney, I think I heard from a sedentary position just now that that's going to put people off. I don't think it is because you well know that downside when it comes to bursary support that the fee issue has not put people off at all coming into higher education. At this morning's audit committee, Mr Swinney, you found it very difficult indeed to rebut the charge that is coming from the university sector about a sustainable funding. No, I won't if you don't mind. I want to make a little bit of progress. Mr Swinney has to answer the point that this sector feels badly underfunded just now in relation to the policy developments that the Scottish Government has set out for them. That's the key point. Until the Scottish Government recognises that, there is going to be a bad hit on our competitive ability and on our ability to retain the academic excellence. That is the point, Mr Swinney, that your Government has to answer. At the moment, there is no answer whatsoever and I'll leave it at that point. Thank you, Ms Smith. I call Ash Denham to call by Colin Smith. Over the past several weeks, we in this Parliament have, in consideration of the draft budget, been challenged to think about the kind of country we want Scotland to be. Budget decision making, as we've heard today in the chamber, will rarely read harmony. I would suggest that the majority of us in this chamber should be able to find some common ground in a document that charters a fair Scotland within the challenging context of Westminster austerity. After all, this is a budget that invests £60 million to expand free early learning and childcare, while exempting 100,000 small businesses from business rates. That is a budget that delivers record investment into the NHS, while limiting fewer than 10 per cent of properties to the large business supplement. That is a budget that provides £120 million for local schools, whilst ensuring that 99 per cent of adults pay no more income tax. Those elements illustrate what the SNP Government has set out to do. Invest in our vital social services and invest in growing our economy. Protecting and expanding our social infrastructure is so important, because it demonstrates our priority of addressing the real problems that are faced by real people. That is why we are investing to grow free childcare, increasing it to 30 hours a week by 2020. That leap forward in hours will benefit children, working parents, those who maybe need to access education or training in order to return to work or it could benefit entrepreneurial parents if they want to set up a business. Such investment is critical in the UK where childcare costs are among the most expensive in Europe. The Government is also maintaining education as a top priority. That £120 million going to local schools is 20 million more than the Government previously announced and schools will have discretion and creativity of approach for how to use those funds to benefit in the classroom. That budget also delivers on what every party in this chamber called for, the protection of and investment into our NHS. The SNP has put forth the boldest NHS investments yet an increase of £304 million elevating the total health revenue budget to £12.7 billion. Of my constituents in Edinburgh Eastern, I will. Jackie Baillie. I would genuinely be grateful to know from the member how she squares this kind of boost of the biggest amount of health spending in all time compared to the fact that Greater Glasgow and Clyde are saying that they have to cut £333 million from their budget. Ash Denham. As the budget provided an increase of £4 million for local services and the announcements today of additional funding, perhaps Labour should consider engaging in the process more constructively because their voters must at this point be wondering nothing from the Labour Party in terms of constructive comments. What is the relevance of Scottish Labour? Think of my constituents in Edinburgh Eastern and how much the NHS investments will serve them. Edinburgh alone is from a new elective care centre and new national trauma centre and new six children's hospital and department of clinical neurosciences and redevelopment of the Royal Edinburgh hospital. In fact, NHS Lothian will see £1.3 billion of investment and this is precisely the kind of care that Scots deserve and expect under this Government. That is why, with 47 per cent of the vote, they sent the SNP to Holyrood with a mandate to address those policies. That is a directive that we cannot ignore and I am proud to stand here and defend this budget knowing that not only my constituents in Edinburgh Eastern will get the best in health and social services but that all of Scotland will. As such, now is not the time to give a tax cut to our highest earners as the Tories would have. Certainly. Douglas Ross. I am grateful to the member for giving weight. Is she proud to support this budget that is stacked up by the Green Party rather than the one that Derek Mackay proposed in December? Just one thing. Which one? A minority Government will have to make compromises. I would assume even the Conservatives would understand that. We certainly will not be taking any lessons from the Tories on the economy as they are about to drag us off a Brexit cliffage. Tax policy would shred Scotland's social fabric and impede investments to grow our economy. Indeed, the Tories may not see the societal damage that their policies inflict but voters in Scotland are well aware and they expect a budget with the manifesto commitments that they voted for commitments made to help people prosper in their lives and not fall behind. That is why we would do well in this chamber to think of the working parents because they do not have access to free childcare, the bright young student who cannot afford to go to university or to think of the pensioner who needs personal care to allow a dignified retirement in their own home. We have a democratic and a moral mandate. An expectation that the parties with members elected to this chamber will respect this Parliament and its processes. A presumption to engage constructively and responsibly and this I feel has been lacking is that we will not let our democratic and moral commitments falter. I see that I am running out of time so I will have to skip our head to the end. In reflecting on the kind of country we wish to be, these are the tenants that we should strive for. I think that many in this chamber across the different parties can agree to that and that is why I asked them to join me today in voting for this budget. Thank you. Colin Smyth. Mr Smyth, please. I refer members to my declaration of interests where it states that I am a local councillor. During last week's Labour debate on the budget, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance made a very telling comment. He said at the end of the debate that we are in a Parliament not a council chamber and maybe the debate should have been conducted in that way. It seems that over 1200 men and women who serve their communities as local councillors across Scotland, over 360 of whom are SNP and are not capable of the same level of debate as Mr Mackay. That is men and women not all political persuasions and none currently wrestling with the tough, painful decisions of which of the services in their communities to cut and which of their neighbours' jobs should be axed. I'll give way to Mr Stewart. Kevin Stewart. I thank Mr Smyth for giving way. Would he welcome the fact that between them, Mr Harvey and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has come up with an extra £5.114 million for dimfriesing gas away today? Surely that's to be welcome. Surely he'll be telling his constituents that that is the case. Mr Smyth. I'm quite happy to come to the maths on dimfriesing gas away in a second. I've done the maths already, Mr Stewart, and I'll tell you exactly what that figure means for the cuts in dimfriesing gas away. Men and women right across Scotland will still be wrestling with cuts as a result of this budget. I can tell the Cabinet Secretary that I've seen, as a council finance spokesperson, a fair few budget debates. Some have delivered as part of a minority administration, some in coalition with colleagues in the SNP, but in that time I've never seen the smoking mirrors and dodgy double counting that I witnessed when the Cabinet Secretary delivered his draft budget speech in this parliamentary chamber in December. In that statement he said that we will invest an additional £300 million in NHS resource health budget. The problem is the cabinet secretary then went on to claim that £107 million was also part of the local government budget when he said that additional investment in social care means that in the coming year there will be no overall reduction in funding that is provided by the Scottish Government to support local government. Not only did the cabinet secretary double count the same funding to try to claim that health spending is higher and cuts to councils is lower, he failed to acknowledge that the £107 million is ring-fenced only for the living wage and a small number of specific new requirements. So there wasn't a penny more in his draft budget to meet growing demand for existing social care services. I support the living wage, a campaign for it for most of my political life. I'm proud to have been instrumental in ensuring that my council became the first living wage accredited council in Scotland. I also proposed that my council should pay the living wage to care workers and organisations commissioned by the council but that was voted down by the then SNP council coalition. I welcome the partial U-turn by the SNP but this side of the chamber will continue to campaign to ensure that all care workers, including those who carry out sleepover shifts will receive the living wage and are currently excluded by this Government. But because the £107 million social care funding is taken up by the living wage it still means that tens of millions of pounds of cuts will need to be made to exist in social care services as a result of this draft budget. Those cuts are sanctioned by the cabinet secretary. In his letter to council leaders on 15 December he wrote that local councils can cut and I quote their allocations to integration authorities in 2017-18 by up to their share of £80 million below the level of budget agreed with their integration authority for 2016-17. That's £80 million of cuts to exist in social care services for our most vulnerable and a time demand is growing. Never before have we seen such content shown towards local government and services and such a systematic breakdown in the relationship between local and central government than the one we are witnessing under this Scottish Government. Local government is seen not as a partner of the Scottish Government but as an enemy. When it comes to properly funding local services there is no meaningful negotiations just in position and if local government dares to call for a fair settlement the threat of sanctions is waived and the consequence is that right across Scotland communities are now facing up to the prospect of losing local services and losing local jobs. After £1.4 billion of cuts to local government in the past five years the debate in council chambers Mr Mackay has such content for is no longer about the services to trim, it's about what services and the communities will have to scrap all together. It does seem the Government will get its cut budget through thanks to the Green Party keeping that the yes coalition together it seems and keeping council jobs and services. I'll give way to Patrick Harvie. I appreciate the member giving way and I agree with a great deal of what he said about the relationship between central and local government and the need for more investment as well as more local control. The Green approach has got his local council £5 million more that they wouldn't have had otherwise. How much difference has the Labour approach made? Mr Smith. I would say to Mr Harvie that I have done the maths on my local council in Dumfries and Galloway. It means instead of having to plug a £20 million funding gap due to the cuts, they will need to plug a £16 million revenue funding gap. So maybe Mr Harvie will tell me, along with the SNP exactly where the £16 million worth of cuts are going to come from. I would also say this to the Greens and to Mr Harvie. The deal that you've done, as I've shown will still mean millions of pounds of cuts to council services and I have to say that on this side of the chamber will not rest until every single voter and every single ward with a green candidate at the council elections in May knows exactly who has voted with the SNP to cut their local jobs and cut their local services. It says a lot about the Green Party that Patrick Harvie has spent more time in his contribution attacking Labour for opposing the cuts than he did opposing the SNP for proposing the cuts. We in this side of the chamber know that all of these cuts can be avoided. All of them, not just some of them. This Parliament has the power to make different choices to be genuinely progressive to say that if we want decent public services we need to fund them properly. That's what Labour's amendment does. Members have a choice. They can vote through a draft budget that still includes £169 million worth of cuts to council services and jobs or we can send a clear message to this Government with a new or amended budget that says no ifs, no buts, no more cuts. Thank you. Ivan McKee to be followed by Dean Lockhart. Mr McKee, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to be taking part in this debate today on Scotland's budget of this historic time. This Parliament has been tasked not only with putting together a spending budget but also a budget to raise revenue. Part of the on-going process of moving more and more responsibility to the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament is a process that we believe will only continue and accelerate over time. We will be taking decisions that stay central to the future prosperity of the people of Scotland and of our economy and we have a heavy responsibility to get that right, to balance the need to stimulate growth with the need to provide quality public services both in a short term and in a long term. In the elections last year the people of Scotland made their views clear. The people will continue in office. They trust us to govern responsibly and competently in the interests of the country but no party secured a majority. The voters expect all parties to work together constructively to deliver a consensus budget in the interests of the country. The people will watch this process and they will judge us on how we conduct ourselves. They expect maturity and appreciation of the responsibilities that we now hold for those who step up to the plate who understand those responsibilities and who work with others in this Parliament to move forward. Anas Sarwar He's right. The first responsibility of any local member is to their constituents. Stilwell Ivan McKee, as a representative of the city of Glasgow, condemned the £324 million of cuts since 2007 and despite the Greens deal today £130 million of cuts to the city in the next two years. Who's going to stand up for the Glasgow or the SNP? Ivan McKee Extra £17 million that's been given today by Derek Mackay as a finance secretary to Glasgow City Council and the extra money that's going to every single school in Glasgow Provin constituency is a result of £120 million to close the attainment gap. The people of Scotland will reward those who understand that responsibility and work with others in this Parliament to move forward. They will punish those who do not who use this platform, they have in this place and beyond to disengage from the process and shout from the sidelines. They will look on as they see the Tory party trash its reputation for fiscal responsibility. Not a days goes past without a Tory member demanding more spending in one portfolio of another and at the very same time we see the alternative truth narrative of the Tory's pedal on Scottish tax. Not just now. The reality is that for 100,000 small businesses a small business bonus means lower taxes than in England. For council tax payers the length and breadth of Scotland, the legs of the council tax freeze means lower taxes than in England and for lower earners our manifesto commitment to a higher starting threshold will mean lower taxes than in England and the whole package of superior public services provided in Scotland including no tuition fees and free prescription. The Tory narrative on Scottish tax is tired and it's untrue and it's counterproductive to the task we should all be engaged in encouraging businesses to invest in Scotland's economy. It demonstrates their skin deep commitment to devolution, their belief that Scotland should simply mirror the policies of the Tory Westminster Government and the people of Scotland will recognise that for what it is. The Tory's focus on the top 10% of earners to the exclusion of the 90% of the backdrop of economic vandalism of Brexit, further trashing their reputation for economic competence. The people of Scotland will also harshly judge those under Labour benches. Neil Findlay. I've sat in this chamber for six years listening to Patrick Harvie's moral superiority in sanctimonious speeches. Hasn't Mr Harvie and the fish clenching Ross Greer just done the impossible and made Nick Clegg look like someone who is principled? Ivan McKee. I think what you'll recognise is what the Greens have done engaging and constructive in this process is releasing another £160 million for local government and that should be welcomed. If the Tony's have trashed their reputation for fiscal competence, Labour have enhanced their reputation for irrelevance. Labour presents a package of tax increases. The vast majority of the money that they will raise coming from a 1% increase in the basic rate of income tax, a 21% tax starting for those earning 11,500 pounds. How on earth do Labour expect to be taken seriously when they propose to punish the very worst society with a tax increase to pay for Tory austerity? Economic and political ineptitude demonstrates why Labour is not only unfit to govern but unfit to oppose and it shows why the people of Scotland will continue to reject them at the ballot box. Their failure to engage in this process demonstrates that they have no interest in delivering their agenda only in opposing for opposition's sake. The budget provides an extra £300 million part of an SNP manifesto commitment to increase NHS spending by £500 million more than the rate of inflation over the course of this parliament a full half a billion pounds more than the Labour Party committed to the NHS in its election manifesto last year. The budget delivers a £120 million attainment fund essential to closing the attainment gap in our schools and it delivers an extra £4 billion investment in infrastructure support economic growth in the Scottish economy and it delivers an extra £160 million from the changes that the finance sector announced today to local government. The budget delivers for the people of Scotland and I look forward to voting for it. The process of reaching a compromise and the interests of people in Scotland has been the most instructive part of these activities over the last few days. A clear line has been drawn between those who understand the roles and responsibilities in this parliament and those who do not. I look forward to voting for it and it is a consequence of achieving nothing. I call Dean Lockhart to be followed by Marie Todd. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The people of Scotland deserve a budget for jobs, a budget to increase their take-home pay and a budget to grow the economy. Instead, the SNP are delivering a budget that increases the tax burden for hardworking people in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK slashes investment in the economy and makes Scotland the highest tax part of the economy. That is precisely why we will not be voting against this budget today. This budget failed to recognise the new fiscal and economic framework, which now applies. As the Fraser of Alder Institute has explained, how Scotland's economy performs relative to the rest of the UK is now crucial for future budgets in Scotland, a point very well made by Bruce Crawford earlier. Given this new fiscal framework, what we really need is a budget that stimulates economic growth. We cannot do that with an economic scenario, where Scotland grows by only 0.7 per cent when the rest of the UK is expanding above 2 per cent. We need a budget that will create new jobs and boost wage growth in Scotland. Last year workers in Scotland had the lowest rise in annual pay of any region in the UK. We need a budget that helps to create 120,000 new businesses identified by Scottish Enterprise as being required to reach productivity, export and employment targets. Unfortunately, the budget does none of that. Instead, it contains a number of measures that will negatively impact economic growth in Scotland. Take, for example, the Enterprise budget. Despite Mr Mackay's last minute U-turn today, the budget for Scottish Enterprise has been cut yet again. For each year the SNP has been in power, the budget for Scottish Enterprise has been cut and is now 40 per cent below budget levels of 2009. It is difficult to understand the rationale behind this cutting of the Enterprise budget at a time when the economy is close to recession. According to Scottish Enterprise its investments contribute to the creation of 55,000 new jobs over the past four years and for every pound it invests in the economy it generates about £9 in return. In other words I will in a second. In other words the multiplier effect of reducing the Scottish Enterprise budget will lead to the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy. We need to recognise this that cutting the Enterprise budget will reduce levels of new business and job creation resulting in lower productivity and innovation levels and ultimately lead to lower government revenues. John Swinney Mr Lockhart, for giving way Can I ask Mr Lockhart the same question that I asked Liz Smith? Conservatives want to cut taxes on the 1st of April but Mr Lockhart is making the argument now for an increase in the enterprise budget. Where is that money to come from? Dean Lockhart What I would say is that you have to start some time and what I will also identify is the close to £500 million that the SNP's mall administration has lost over the years. If you were more efficient in government you would have more money to spend. We have identified cost overruns close to £1 billion. The budget presents a unique opportunity to send out a clear message that Scotland is open for business. Unfortunately, the SNP is sending out another message that individuals and businesses will be taxed higher in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Take, for example, the SNP's large business supplement, which is basically a penalty on business expansion. At a time when we need to encourage small business to scale up and employ more people, this SNP expansion tax penalises business that want to expand even after taking into account the increased threshold for this tax. More than 20,000 businesses in Scotland will be taxed higher than their counterparts in the rest of the UK. It should come, therefore, as no surprise that the Scottish economy continues to badly underperform the rest of the UK. It is not only expanding businesses that will be penalised by this budget. At a time when the Scottish economy desperately needs more job creators, technology leaders, entrepreneurs, risk takers, highly skilled workers, all of whom would expand the tax base and contribute to higher government revenues, those individuals now face higher tax in Scotland than other parts of the UK. There is nothing progressive about increasing tax for hardworking people. I need to make some progress. Ultimately, increasing tax will result in lower spending for vital public services. There is nothing progressive about that. As the Chamber of Commerce has said, the sooner politicians realise that economic growth, not hiking taxis, will increase revenues, the sooner Scotland will prosper. Derek Mackay. I thank Dean Lockhart for giving way in his reference to the chambers of commerce. Does he also agree with Liz Cameron and the chambers of commerce who said, we very much welcome the Scottish Government's decision to match the basic business rates poundage to that south of the border, resulting in overall decrease in rates. Do you agree with that comment? Dean Lockhart. I think that other business organisations have expressed real concern about the revaluations of business rates coming up. For every quote, Mr Mackay, you have from business, I can give you 10 that are negative on the budget. Exactly. Let me conclude by agreeing that the finance secretary is indeed lucky. This budget benefits from half a billion pounds funding from the UK Government, extra funding, at a time when the SNP is running a £15 billion budget deficit, in Western Europe. It is somewhat ironic, although not surprising that your GERS numbers is somewhat ironic, although not surprising that the SNP budget is being supported by the pro-independence Green Party. I say ironic, because if the SNP and Greens get their wish for an independent Scotland, this chamber will not be debating how to spend half a billion pounds extra, it will be debating how to strip out £15 billion from vital public services across Scotland. Ash Denham talked about damaging our social fabric. The decimation of public services in Scotland is precisely what would happen if the SNP continues to pursue its single-minded obsession with independence. I remind all members to speak through the chair, please, and not to each other. I now call Marie Todd to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you. It is indeed a historic budget, and it is published against a backdrop of economic and political uncertainty. More than ever, the people of Scotland need a budget, and this Parliament needs to deliver it. Conservative Minister Michael Fallin came to Scotland today essentially to tell us to leave Brexit to the Tories, forget about independence and to get on with the day job. I think that it is high time he told his Conservative colleagues that getting on with the day job involves negotiating and passing a budget on behalf of the people of Scotland. The Tory party internal war over Europe is wreaking havoc on the UK economy and on our social fabric. The pound is falling, inflation is rising and the horrific prospect of our EU citizens being used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. At this moment in time, the people of Scotland do not want membership and posturing. They want us to get on with running the country, doing the day job, you might say. The harm caused by the Tory's infamous and failed deficit reduction programme followed by Brexit has wrecked their reputation as a sound pair of hands in the economy. In this chamber, hearing them demand for both cuts and increased spend is the latest manifestation of their fiscal incompetence. The Conservatives in Scotland may well try to distance themselves from their colleagues down south, but the people of Scotland are not daft. We can hear the demands for tax cuts for the richest 10 per cent and we know where the money is coming from. No more free prescriptions, no more free education and less money for public services. We heard this week that the UK Government's policy on tax and benefits will only succeed in delivering the biggest increase in inequality since the time that Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street. Having last night seen the one remaining Tory MP in Scotland vote against the expressed view of the people of Scotland, we do indeed seem to be right back in the 1980s this week and we didn't need myrdo Fraser movies to remind us of it. It feels like it. It seems that Labour Party 2 it seems that Labour Party 2 are stuck in the 1980s confirming their own irrelevance by not even coming to the table to negotiate. Although their plan was to increase everyone's taxes, even the poorest in society and that was something we could not agree with, I'm pretty sure on areas where we do have common interest. The Lib Dems are keen to appear entirely reasonable in public, but behind closed doors they are entirely uncompromising and say that they will never support the budget put forward by the party of independence regardless of what it might offer to the people of Scotland. I firmly believe that this is a budget filled with things worth supporting. It protects public services, it safeguards household incomes, it supports economic growth and empowers local communities and people across the country. There is much to be proud of in this budget for members of all party to get behind. This is a budget that, as I said last week, delivers record investment for health substantially more than any other party in this chamber offered in their manifesto. Jamie Greene is right giving way. Does she accept that growth in the last quarter, last year, growth in the UK was at 2.2% and growth in Scotland at 0.7%. Unemployment in Scotland was up and is at an all-time 10-year low in the rest of the UK. Which bit of this budget fills this chamber with any confidence that growth will improve in Scotland under the deal that your party has just done? Mary Todd Given that we are still a part of the UK Government's management of the finances of Scotland, I would say that that is a damning indictment of the UK Government's management of the finances of Scotland. As someone who worked in mental health for 20 years and who is well aware that mental health has often been the poor relation of general medical services, I am delighted to see a budget which will deliver record investment set to exceed over 5 billion over the course of this Parliament. I want to draw everyone's attention to the climate change. Climate change is one of the defining issues of our age, and it is significant that the Scottish Government's budget sets out its commitment to the delivery of our climate change ambitions, of reducing greenhouse emissions, investment in energy efficiency, support for renewable energy sector, creation of a vibrant climate for innovation will tackle fuel poverty, provide high quality jobs and ensure that Scotland continues to lead the world in developing new technologies and in addressing climate change. I cannot believe that the other parties in this chamber do not support this. This budget has made closing the poverty-related attainment gap our number one priority, and the new £120 million pupil equity fund shows a commitment to doing just that. It will give teachers and school leaders the ability to decide the best way of using the extra funding to close the poverty-related attainment gap and improve standards in their school. At my own primary school, Alipol primary school, is set to gain over £14,000 in funding from this scheme. There is much to support in this budget for members across this chamber. It is now time for us all to do our day jobs, find consensus and deliver the budget that the people of Scotland voted for. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The SNP were returned to government on a promise that they would make education their top priority, and I agree with that. Nicola Sturgeon has said that closing the attainment gap is going to be our overarching mission as First Minister, and we on those benchants who have long championed this issue, of course agree with that, but rhetoric must be matched with resource. In the words of former Vice President Joe Biden, don't tell me about your values, show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value. When you look at this budget the values are only too clear because words and promises are not backed by investment. Intent and objectives have no new money and when it comes to education they refuse to consider the powers that this place now has. If you want a sign that this draft budget was a draft budget of cuts, you have to ask yourself why are they conceding a compromise with the Greens to mitigate cuts for cuts that they claim didn't exist just a few days ago. Now, when you look to education it may be not obvious where that is in the budget because the reality is education is primarily delivered by local councils and local government. Indeed, spending on schools comprises something around half of everything that local government spends. There's £327 million worth of cuts in the draft budget that Derek Mackay put before us and you cannot make cuts on those scales without undermining the ability of our schools to deliver education. Today we have compromise and whether that's 10 per cent mitigation or quarter or half there are still cuts and when those cuts are falling on local government it's our schools that will suffer. It may be unsurprising from the SNP but it's deeply disappointing from the Greens who have stood and said time and time again that they stand for the principle progressive taxation to compromise and roll over in the way they have. That is a compromise that will not be accepted by parents it will not be accepted by teachers and anyone who believes in the future of children should not accept the compromise that the Greens have made today. Indeed, I think it is telling that Mr Harvey spent so much of his time in his contribution attacking us and dealing with the cuts proposed by this Government. I'll take Alison Johnston into it. Alison Johnston, thank you. The member will be aware that as a result of the commitment secured by the Greens today for local government we will be able to save libraries in Edinburgh from a 2.54 million pound cut. We'll restore 1 million to welfare advice head off a cut of £400,000 to Edinburgh leisure stop £300,000 being cut from support teachers. In your constituency Mr Johnson but she knows fine well in the draft budget there were 38 million pounds worth of cuts being handed down to Edinburgh. That's the reality of those cuts and as those cuts we're only going partway to be mitigated that her party is supporting in this chamber. You only have to look at the numbers to see what's happening in education to see the reality of not just this budget but the nine budgets that this Government has passed down with 1.4 billion pounds worth of cuts in revenue. We've seen teachers down by 4,000. Support staff down by 1,000. Spend per primary pupil has fallen by 561 pounds, that's 10 per cent since 2010. There's cuts equivalent of over 400,000 pounds for every school day since 2010. So you might not like our numbers you might not want to accept the damning survey results the education committee has been receiving from teachers but maybe you should listen to the OECD because the survey results in there from head teachers make the story very clear. 45 per cent of head teachers say that their school is hindered by lack of teaching staff 32 per cent of head teachers are saying that their school is hindered by lack of assisting staff and 31 per cent of head teachers say that schools are hindered by lack of educational materials but it's not just the numbers anyone who has spent any time with staff from our schools will hear the same stories. Indeed the unison survey was interesting. Some of the stories I'd just like to repeat now on textbooks and I quote math resources are woeful. Every book has either no front cover, no back cover and pages missing, not because damage has been done to the resources but because the school has not been able to purchase new books in a moment. The same is true in our science labs another contribution. We have less money every year to provide the basic materials for teaching, chemicals, apparatus, glassware and textbooks and as one primary school head teacher in my constituency put it to me so I don't want more control of my budget I have enough already, I just want enough budget so I have janitorial cover so I'm not the one unblocking the lose at lunchtime. I'll give way to Mr McIne Time is tight, you must be quick Mr McIne A timely point and intervention thank you for taking it Mr Johnson would you like to explain why it is then in talking about the resource issues why it is that you would be voting against £120 million additional resource for attainment direct to the schools of Scotland my answer to that is very simple you should look to our reason member because we say that we should stick up for local services, use the powers of this parliament and stop these cuts, it's really very simple Mr McIne so in the interests of time I will sum up the importance of education must be matched in the budget if the SNP are going to... Mr Finlay, excuse me Mr Johnson Mr Finlay, would you stop shouting from the back benches where you're seated Mr Johnson It is simply not good enough to talk up education while making cuts year after year and hiding behind the smoke screen of local government as you do so this party believes in progressive taxation we value public safe services that's why we make the argument that we should use the powers of this parliament to put a penny on the income tax so we don't have to see the damage that will be done to local services by the budget that this party has put for us that's the difference between the Labour Party and the SNP we believe in progressive taxation we believe in progressive policies we believe in the powers of this parliament I'm sorry that the party over there does not Time is tight absolutely no more than six minutes including interventions called Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Adam Thomas Thank you Mr Officer, the Labour Party didn't believe in progressive taxation when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were Prime Minister because for all but one month of 13 years it was actually lower than it currently is under the Conservatives I've had today sour grapes from the three opposition parties Kezia Dugdale marginalised the Tories Murdo Fraser unhinged Dean Lockhart incoherent Willie Rennie outmanoevert Patrick Harvie the man of the moment along with Derek Mackay and it's a tribute to both of those individuals that have worked worked hard to deliver a budget for Scotland Kezia Dugdale talked earlier about engagement and how Labour genuinely engaged with the cabinet secretary Andy Kerr genuinely engaged with the former cabinet secretary and he came with a shopping list to the SNP Government and said Labour would like this and this the cabinet secretary agreed every single one of Labour's demands and they couldn't even get their own group to agree their own demands The reality is that whatever the SNP proposed Labour would oppose Mike Russell my colleague once said a decade ago in this chamber if the SNP invented the light bulb Labour would denounce it as a dangerous anti-candle device What we've actually got today is over £900 million for public services and those increases were met with grim faces on the Labour benches who, if you remember in autumn of last year we're talking about five or seven hundred million cuts to local government services which of course have not actually ar risen in any shape or form they're greeting for the sidelines and if we want to talk about cuts I remember I was a Glasgow City Council when Tony Blair cut £168 million within 10 per cent of the city's budget in two years I was an MSP here when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and cut £500 million from this Parliament's budget it's only two years ago that Labour MPs walked in to the lobbies with their Tories and voted for 30 billion of cuts which is why you've got one MP in Scotland and not 41 and of course as I like to do I'm happy to give way to Jackie Baillie I am very grateful to the member for taking an intervention perhaps he would remind me that during the period from 2007 to 2011 the SNP put through was supported by the Tories Kenneth Gibson The reality is that a budget had to go through and see when a budget we negotiated with the Tories sometimes we had to change a budget by half sometimes even 1 per cent but the core SNP budget went through and I'm really delighted that the Tories did support those budgets and allowed us to show that we were a competent Government kick Labour into touch in the 2011 election and thanks to the Tories helping us with those budgets get an overall majority and have a referendum now as for the Tories droning on about taxation let's talk about taxation the average council tax in Scotland is £1152 at band D in England it's £1,530 so I'll say to John Scott I don't see a huge load of people in England coming to Scotland to escape an increase in council tax and I think it doesn't say much for your view of doctors I think a £3,400 increase in their taxation might deter them from coming to our beautiful country the appeal of which you clearly underestimate I just as you underestimate the chaos in the English health service now I'd like to look at North Ayrshire Council the alleged devastating cuts in 1617 the budget was £279.443 million in revenue and capital this coming year it will be £303.89 million capital in capital revenue an increase of 24.447 million 8.8% I'm pleased to say the highest increased percentage in Scotland and that includes £2.925 million in health and social care integration funds and £4.392 million in additional money to help close the attainment gap something I thought Daniel Johnson might welcome but it doesn't appear that he's going to so these are the additional resources Labour tries to ignore with its fantasy figures and let's talk about some other areas where the SNP Government is delivering no one really has talked about the £3 billion so far today in the delivery of 50,000 affordable new homes or let's see what Andy Willack has got to say about the small business bonus scheme by giving full relief to 100,000 Scottish firms the Government has lifted the prospects of smaller businesses in a tough 2017 and the Scottish Government continues to invest in rural housing in island housing and we're increasing because many MSPs from across the party divide have asked for it significantly the funds available for mental health spending from £39.45 million to £52.2 million an increase of 32% in skills again we're delivering on skills with Andy Willack saying colleagues this is an excellent budget I urge everyone in the chamber to support it today thank you I call Adam Tomkins we followed by John Mason thank you what Scotland needs is a budget for growth but what Scotland is getting is a budget that will make us the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom that won't stimulate growth it will stymie it we have in Scotland only 17,000 additional rate income tax payers what should we do about that we should double that number but what are we doing about it we're going out of our way to make them the highest taxed citizens anywhere in this United Kingdom the top 1% of earners in the UK pay 28% of income tax that is received by Governments in the UK those with the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest burden we are told and I fully agree but they already do more than a quarter more than a quarter of all income tax is paid by the top 1% of earners in a rational Scotland in a fair Scotland we wouldn't be seeking to penalise these tax payers we'd be seeking to double their number even if we raised their number to the UK average that would yield an additional £600 million in tax receipts all of which would come to this Government not at the moment the tragedy of this budget is that despite all his earnest appearances to the contrary Derek Mackay does in fact understand this some of the time just yesterday the finance committee took extensive evidence on stage 1 of the air departure tax bill it is Scottish Government policy to cut air passenger duty or air departure tax by 50% over the lifetime of this Parliament why? because they know that cutting taxation stimulates growth air departure tax is to be cut to quote from the Scottish Government's own policy memorandum to boost Scotland's air connectivity and economic competitiveness encouraging the establishment of new routes which will enhance business connectivity and tourism this and I quote again not only creates new routes but creates new jobs all this by cutting tax cutting tax but not cutting the revenues accruing to the Scottish Exchequer will come with new wages and wages are taxed yesterday the finance committee heard that cutting APD could generate fresh economic activity in Scotland worth 200 million pounds a year cut tax, grow the economy and that Mr Mackay is the laffer curve and you shouldn't need myrdo Fraser to remind you of it Presiding Officer why is it that the SNP gets this when it comes to air departure tax but at the same time has introduced a budget that fails to reflect these core economic truths anywhere for it's not as if we can somehow afford not to grow the Scottish economy GDP growth in Scotland is lower than the UK as a whole our employment rate is lower than the UK's our employment growth rate is lower than the UK's our inactivity rate is higher than the UK's our skills gap is greater than in the UK as a whole we have fewer apprenticeships per head than in the UK generally and the proportion of our workforce lacking digital skills is greater than in the UK as a whole and what I would say to Mary Todd and others on the SNP benches is that none of this can be blamed on Brexit none of it, none of it at all all of it is the responsibility of the government that has been running the Scottish economy for a decade the SNP Government Scotland's productivity is likewise poor in the third quartile not the third decile as the cabinet secretary said earlier on today in the third quartile of OECD countries when the Scottish Government aims to be in the top quartile the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise told the Parliament's economy committee recently that to achieve this would require a 200% hike in innovation levels 200% hike when Scottish Enterprise's budget is being slashed how on earth Derek Mackay taking his axe to the enterprise agencies is going to deliver economic growth for Scotland is something that neither the economy committee nor the finance committee have been able to understand perhaps the cabinet secretary will explain it to Parliament this afternoon yet this is a budget when comparisons between Scotland and the rest of the UK have matted as never before as Bruce Crawford said earlier on this afternoon and as the finance committee pointed out in its report Scotland's economic performance relative to the UK as a whole is now a key factor in determining Scotland's budget do well relative to the rest of the UK and Scotland will reap the rewards do poorly do as we are doing now and Scotland will suffer stronger for Scotland if only that were true the only virtue of the SNP's budgetary policies for the Scottish economy is that they are at least comparatively clear that is to say they are clearly bad for the economy bad for business, bad for taxpayers bad for skills and bad for public services this much may be clear but there is alas a great deal about this budget that is anything but transparent indeed there are parts of it which seem to have been presented in a manner positively designed to mislead figures do not compare like with like comparisons of spend over time do not correspond there is an urgent need for greater transparency in the government's budget documents as the finance committee unanimously said this is not the budget that Scotland needs it's not a budget that deserves our support and it's not a budget that we can support I will join my colleagues tonight in voting against it and the last of the open speeches is John Mason thank you I'm delighted that there now seems to be a majority in Parliament for approving this budget at stage 1 and I think we all have to accept there is a lot of good in this budget and I particularly welcome the continuing commitment to 50,000 affordable homes a billion pounds investment in mental health increasing the spending on the primary care in health to 11% and of course the 120 million to tackle the attainment gap and I understand that 21 million of that 120 is coming to Glasgow to select the challenges and needs in the city perhaps especially in my Shettleston constituency where the cabinet secretary was yesterday and I believe this emphasis on the money going where the need is greatest is absolutely the right one let me go a wee bit further it's all very well some councils arguing that they are receiving less funding per head than another council but surely the stronger argument is that funding follows need for the Government for recognising the position of Glasgow Johann Lamont I wonder if John Mason is a fellow Glasgow MSP would accept that the removal of £324 million by this Government since 2007 to Glasgow will have had a massive impact on the life chances of our young people and our suggestion in this budget is not just to accept what's already in the budget but to give greater resources to the Scottish Government on the need and tackling inequality John Mason First we have to live within our means and if Johann Lamont is arguing for more for local government and to cut the health service then I would oppose that I'm afraid and I would also oppose her suggestion of taxing people on £11,000 more that is ridiculous I'll come on to that later it goes without saying that we would all like to do more if we had more money but I think that the Government has been realistic on what we need to spend I saw in one briefing the phrase cash limited being used as if it was a bad thing but the reality is we are all cash limited whether as individuals, as organisations or as governments we may be able to increase our income but there is still a cash limit as to what we can spend on any one sector it's all very well listing what we would like to spend on the NHS or whatever but there has to be a realism as to what we can actually afford looking at the position of the individual parties starting with the Conservatives at least the other three parties the Labour Lib Dems Greens have been honest enough to say that they want to spend more on services and they need more tax to fund it but by contrast the Conservatives ask for more spending on several areas and just this afternoon we've had colleges local government, universities more on colleges Scottish Enterprise all wanting more money and either they want tax cuts or at least to match the UK how can that possibly be they now have two CAs in the team and I have expected much better than that from the Conservative benches as it seems not to have understood so far that if you want more spending in one sector you either cut from another sector or you raise taxes but if you want to cut taxes you have to cut some of the expenditure as well Liz Smith Mason for giving way so that there's more money John Mason I think it's been pointed out very well by John Swinney already that there's a time element in that and we're looking at next year's budget I do not think you can do an awful lot and I don't think it's clear cut a growing the economy either we've all tried it and we are all toiling since about 1707 I think now tax I would like to argue is a good thing now at this point I would want to say that if we believe in a healthy society with good public services improved health, cohesiveness then sensible levels of taxation are an important part of the mix now I absolutely accept that taxes can be too high as when Labour raised them to 98% in my lifetime but that does discourage people living here and businesses will not be encouraged either but if we want to attract businesses and people for that matter we need a good education system a strong health system there's loads, railways and other infrastructure that's where the Conservatives and I fear the Scottish chambers of commerce get it wrong it is not as simplistic as saying that low tax rates make us more attractive the chambers in their briefing admit that our income tax differentials quote, may seem modest in year one well that is fair comment but they warn against even more punitive Scottish tax rises well there haven't been any punitive Scottish tax rises so that's not very credible sponsors' proposals, if going five pence higher than the UK are too big a jump at one go, we do not know what the reaction to that would be and if it led to behaviour change and people leaving Scotland that would not be healthy. The chamber says that we are making modest changes this year and I would agree with them on that. The Labour amendment has some clarity this week because last week Alex Rowley told us in the debate last Wednesday that no one earning under £21,000 would pay more. However, today, the Labour priority position is different, and that the reality is that everyone over £11,500 would pay more. A marginal rate of 20 per cent tax and 12 per cent NIC is far too much for people on £11,000 or £12,000. I could mention more in the process. The process should be that Westminster sets its budget first, then we set our budgets and then local government after that. am ymlyngr iadas fel exca乎 iawn i fewn ar hallsu Cadwp cy lleразd. Inall, I think that that reflects well in this Parliament, that the deals can be done no one gets exactly what they want, but perhaps the public actually wants that and prefers a bit of give-and-take. Thank you. We now move to the closing speeches, and I call Jackie Baillie up to six minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. From the start we have made clear our opposition to the cut to public services. Cezio Dugdale ydy i mewn i ddim yn gweithio ddatganiad gwyrdd o'r Refyns minister cynru yn gweithio i gŷnnedd a'r ddweud o'r dweud o'r ddeud yn yr mor ffrindwyd ddiwedd a fyddwch meddwl gwn i'r ffordd?d teams. Felly wanderfau ddigon dwy cyntafol am yr argynbeth. The truth is that the SNP do not want to do a deal with Labour. Remember that for four years they were joined at the hemp with the Tories to get their budget through. I have to be honest, Presiding Officer, the SNP's idea of consensus is simply that you need to agree with them. Our very clear approach from the start has been to use the new powers of the Parliament to stop the cuts in full, not in part, invest in public services and grow the economy. That stands in stark contrast to the SNP who are content to simply operate as a conveyor belt for Tory austerity. We have the power to do things differently but it comes down to political choice. Let me just say to the chamber in the face of austerity a post-war Labour Government invested iawn o'r NHS, o'r ffacr o wstapio mae'r S&P wedi ydy? Mae'r gyffin sy'n cymdeithas o maes Peythygau. Mae'n adegwyddiad i gael gw audiobooku ar palo dros NHS Greater Glasgow yn Clyde, ond ariol yn cyflawni ddwynghwyl ofn o 133 miliwn pwn ar ddweud o gael gwylo ffyrdd yn 67 miliwn pwn этим y year, ddwyngwch yn cyflawni ffyrdd o ddwyngwyl ysgrffiad. Fy enw i ddiddordeb hwnnw, oedd sefydlu gyda'r cyllidau hwnnw, cyfnodolol yn cyfrwyngau, ychwanegol iawn, a'r mynd iawn ei ffordd i'r elwyr, rydyn ni'n i ffawr i'r ddiweddau lleidiau. Felly, mae'n gwybod, gyda'r prifodol i ddimeniol iawn dweud, y Prif Weinidog ysgwerthod cyd-dwylliant, i ddweud yr Unig Llywodraeth hwn yn ddod gyda'r ffaith o cooktiau gyda'r unig iawn, ym sólom ac i llin gael. Brun i ddechrau, spellwydd hyn yn ei ddiddordeb yn ddigon i ddechrau a ddaeth gwybodaeth, ac mae'n iawn o gwnghau rydyn ni i gwasanaethol i gwybodaeth gwladol. Ysgolwnt yn mynd i ddim yn deall, ond nid oes i ddim yn y llwyddiadau gwybodaeth i ddim yn y llwyddiadau. Gweithio ffordd o ddechrau gwasanaeth yn y lleiag y flwyddyn, y maes fydd yn weltydd i wneud yn cael yr ysgolwyddiadau i ddatblygu. DUF is up, EC is up, growth is designating and business confidence is plumeting. In the face of this, the SNP are in denial pretending that everything is OK. Perhaps, most worryingly of all, for our debate today, it's that the Employment's itself is down. I said to the chamber last week that the fallen employment has serious consequences for our country. Fewer people paying tax, a lower tax yield means less money for our public services. It is therefore self-evident that growing the economy is a key priority. The Cabinet Secretary tells us that Scottish Enterprise should be overjoyed. He cut them by a staggering 48 per cent but now they are to get back £35 million. It fails to tell you that, despite his apparent largesse, there is still a cut of £50 million in real terms to the Scottish Enterprise budget, so much for growing the economy. As for the £35 million, Presiding Officer, this is financial transaction money. I invite the chamber to go explore what this means because this is allocated by the Treasury. It is only used for loans or equity, and it needs to be repaid, Presiding Officer. Money with one hand, sleight of hand, taken away, waste the other. No, I have heard enough from you already, but let me put this in the most simplest of terms so that they understand. I was always taught that if you took £100 away and then returned £40 of it, you are still £60 short. Do not expect congratulations for making huge cuts and then putting a little back, which is in fact not real money. Let me turn to the Greens. They have settled for a small change in the threshold that delivers £29 million. That is really the only new money on the table. The other £130 million is smoke and mirrors, shifting budget lines, accounting trickery, relying on underspends that they might need for other things and therefore cannot be guaranteed. We are pulling apart the deal that you arrived at with them. You have settled for very little indeed. What we have seen today, Presiding Officer, are lofty progressive principles abandoned for low politics and the illusion of influence. The Greens are fooling no-one, Presiding Officer, but themselves. They are certainly not fooling the SNP who have played them like a fiddle. I pay tribute to the cabinet secretary's guile, but Kenny Gibson gave the game away. There was a marriage of convenience with the Tories, which they then abandoned. The Greens await a similar fate. Presiding Officer, let's not pretend that this is anything but a grubby backroom deal by parties with more interest in forcing another independence referendum on the people of Scotland rather than protecting local services like schools and care of the elderly. I say shame on them. Douglas Ross, up to seven minutes please, Mr Ross. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today's stage 1 proceedings have reinforced what the Scottish Conservatives have been saying for weeks. This budget is not fit for purpose. My colleagues on these benches have comprehensively addressed why this is the case, but it bears repeating again. The SNP, aided by the Greens, has chosen to hike taxes on families and firms, making Scotland the most expensive part of the UK in which to live, work and do business. They are asking the Scots to pay more, while the SNP continues to deliver the same shambles on education, the NHS and our justice system. While Derek Mackay is raiding the pockets of hard-working Scots, he has conveniently failed to mention that he has got half a billion pounds more to spend this year. The SNP likes to claim that it is competent at running the country, but this budget has shown that to be absolute fantasy. I see the First Minister sitting on the front bench, and I wonder if she is doing a report card on her cabinet secretaries after the stage 1 debate that I would not like to see the marks given to Messrs Mackay, Brown and Matheson. We have Mr Mackay, a finance secretary, who had to ask my colleague Murdo Fraser to explain the Laffer curve, and I'm pretty sure from his reaction to Mr Mackay's essay that there's no way he wrote what Mr Mackay read out earlier on. Dean Lockhart was quite right to outline that, despite these last-minute changes, there is still a cut to the enterprise networks. You might have thought that Mr Brown would have spoken up against these as cabinet, but maybe that's expecting too much, because earlier this week he found out that Mr Brown, through an FOI request, had little awareness of the role of Highlands and Islands Enterprise two months after he'd set up a review on HIE, a hardly competent Government. At Justice, Mr Matheson, dubbed by some to be the Invisible Minister, would probably have preferred not to have been seen when he came and appeared before the Justice Committee. We were looking at the Crown Office budget, and we had already heard from the Crown Office that they would have to lose jobs as a result of the real-term cuts from this SNP Government. But the Justice Secretary said in response to my question about his Government's cuts and job losses, I'm not expecting any at present. A week later, the Crown Agent told the same Justice Committee that there would be 30 jobs lost because of the SNP's cuts to their budget. Presiding Officer, I dearly love to tell these SNP ministers to go back to school and learn their briefs, given the shambolic nature of education under the nationalists. I'm not sure they would learn very much. Now, Deputy Presiding Officer, we've had some great quotes in this debate today. I've enjoyed it greatly. Ash Denham confirmed to me that she prefers the budget amended by the Greens rather than the one Derek Mackay proposed in December. Mary Todd told us that this Parliament, with powers over finance, the economy, enterprise, education, policing and the NHS, does not have the powers to improve things. Will I tell the SNP member? I say to Mary Todd, we have the powers, we just don't have the right Government to use them. Kenneth Gibson stood up and called Patrick Harvey the man of the hour. Words that spread fear through many of us myself included. So what about the man of the hour? How tough a negotiator is Patrick Harvey? What was his negotiation for the vital six green votes to get the budget passed tonight? How much ground did he get the SNP to concede? Far less than they should have. Not my words, but Mr Harvey's own words he said in response to Kezia Dugdale that he got far less from the Scottish Government than he should have. It's hardly the amazing deal the green MSPs say we got. I will give way to the man of the hour. I'm grateful to the member for giving way because it allows me to ask him the same question that I would have asked to Jackie Baillie. Both have said that we should have got more. Can the member tell me any occasion when any budget has been debated in this Parliament when either the Conservatives or the Labour Party have achieved anything like the scale of an impact that Greens have managed today? Douglas Ross. Business rates cuts a thousand extra police officers on the beat. Town centre regeneration fund. If you want to learn how to negotiate, listen to the Conservatives, not say yourself that you didn't get enough from the SNP and then complain when members criticise you for it. Deputy Presiding Officer, I also very quickly want to mention business rates. I've been contacted by countless businesses in Murray who have been affected by the proposed rises, which the SNP Government is overseeing. Hotels is not a laughing matter, Mr Gibson. Hotels in forests. Entertainment venues in Elgin. They've all said to me that these increases will harm their businesses. We know from First Minister's question today that even SNP members can't swallow the increases that these businesses would have to put on their fees to meet the hike in the business rates. These businesses are right to expect more from the SNP and their Scottish Government. Finally, I just want to mention about the deal done to secure tonight's budget. We now know the price of dealing with the Greens. The Nationalist Alliance between the two parties in this chamber who want to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK also wants Scottish taxpayers to pay more. The SNP and the Greens have lurched far further to the left than any of us feared they would. I stop when the First Minister speaks from a sedentary position if she would like to intervene. The First Minister does not want to intervene. That is very telling on her Government's budget. Murdo Fraser has said that Scottish businesses will suffer because of this budget. Hard-working families will suffer because of this budget. The SNP would love to paint our opposition to these tax heights as protecting the rich, but it is about protecting the many public servants, including teachers, nurses and policemen and women. Those are the people who will suffer under the SNP plans. Scottish Conservatives have outlined an alternative approach that would increase the tax base. It would provide an environment right for growth at a time when the performance in Scotland's economy has never been more pivotal in providing cash for public services. Because we have ambition for Scotland, we cannot support this budget while it proposes to make Scotland the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. For those reasons, Scottish Conservatives will vote against the budget at decision time tonight. Derek Mackay to close the debate. You have up to 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was thoroughly disappointed by Douglas Ross's comments in the content of his contribution, not just because he showed that not only is the Tory party not fit for Government, they are not fit for opposition either. It is quite remarkably disappointing contribution from a number of Conservative members today. Sorry, I was turning my attention to the Tories and it seems to upset the Labour Party now. In terms of better-togethers and back-togethers for the budget, it is not just... It is not just... No, no, no, no. That is fine. Presiding Officer, maybe it is a sign of things to come, but they are not just back together for the budget. From what I have seen this afternoon, you are bitter together. Bitter together. What a woeful, woeful contribution to a matured debate. What was meant to be a matured debate on the public services of our country. I do think that it has been quite a lively debate and members have taken a number of different positions, and that is to be expected. What I have tried to do throughout, though, is to try and find the common ground, the consensus that exists within the Parliament to deliver a budget for Scotland that we could all agree to. The comment that I was most disappointed by from Douglas Ross is when he made an appalling attack on the shambles in Scottish education as he described it. I think that that is an appalling attack on the education service of Scotland. It is symptomatic of how the Conservatives have reverted to tight and constantly, no matter the subject, talking Scotland down. If people are scared away from investing or living in Scotland, it will be because of the messages that they hear on the Scottish Tory Party, whose day job seems to be standing up for Westminster and your hard-right Tory Government. I do regret now not taking the intervention from Willie Rennie, especially if he was going to start with, I think that Derek Mackay has done a good job. I now regret not taking that intervention, but I will say of the Liberal Democrats, I think that there is much in this budget that they can support. In terms of the Labour Party, they know that their amendment is totally meaningless. It is totally meaningless. But what the Labour Party are proposing is not to end austerity, but with their proposition on the basic rate of income tax, is simply to pass austerity on to the households across Scotland with no consideration, no consideration of the risks to the Scottish economy. In terms of the additional rate, no cognisance of the advice that says that it might lose money to the public services of Scotland. What we are proposing as a Government is not just an investment of an extra £700 million for our public services, but an extra £900 million for our public services that this evening the Labour Party won't support. On the subject of support, from sector to sector, I have a number of quotes in a moment, a number of quotes of support for our budget. From Colleges Scotland who say, the increased investment in Scotland's colleges is very welcome indeed, particularly in these tough financial times. We have discussed the Chamber of Commerce welcoming our business rates position as it relates to small business bonus and a poundage, and welcoming our infrastructure spend as well. Or the EIS welcoming the additional funds to tackle attainment in Scotland and inequality. Or the Federation of Small Businesses who have spoken about how we are giving hope to small businesses in difficult times. I could go on with a number of supportive quotes about our budget, but of course it is only right that I hear from Anasawa. For giving way, the SNP used to support the 50p tax ban, and indeed the cabinet secretary said at the finance committee that if the 50p tax ban would introduce in other parts of the UK, he would consider introducing it in Scotland. Why is it that he is only a unionist when it comes to tax policy? Or should I say, why is he only a unionist when it comes to Tory tax policy? Of course, because the problem is that the Labour Party believed their own rhetoric. I did not actually say that. What I tried to do was explain the block grant adjustment to the Labour Party members on the committee, but I failed. Clearly, Presiding Officer, to do that, and I was explaining the difference of what happens in terms of the outturn for our resources in relation to the new fiscal framework. I will happily arrange a full briefing for members of the Labour Party that want to understand how that works. Our proposition on the additional rate is that it remains under review, but we would want to be certain that such a position would generate resources for public services rather than jeopardise them, which is what the Labour Party would suggest that we do. It has criticised my position on local services. It would be true to say that it is not just £240 million in terms of the potential spending power to local services. No, it is not. After that budget, with the co-operation and engagement of the Greens, the totality of spending power for local services increases to more than £400 million extra resources for our local services. A number of council areas have been raised by different members. Colin Smyth mentioned his area. His area will see an increase of £12 million in terms of local services. Kezia Dugdale mentioned Edinburgh. His area will see an increase of more than £30 million. That is 3.92 per cent. Ivan McKee mentioned Glasgow as did other members. His increase is £45 million. Kenny Gibson mentioned North Ayrshire, a £26 million increase in terms of that. We are investing in our public services. We are also investing in infrastructure, whether it is housing, digital or water infrastructure, roads or rail that would be opposed by the Labour Party, or new community facilities, or the fantastic investment that will increase the number of houses that we are building in Scotland as well. We are delivering stability for our economy and stimulating growth with further investment and innovation and internationalisation as well. We see back to the Conservatives. They kept referring to the extra resources that we will have to spend. It is said repeatedly and it has been backed up by the Fraser of Allander Institute that the figures that you refer to do not refer to full discretionary spend. I might need to do another briefing to educate many of the Conservatives on the actual discretionary spend that this Parliament has at its disposal. The most disappointing thing from the Tories is that I have two minutes left because I want to make a very important point about what the Conservatives are proposing to do. Yes, you were elected to be a strong opposition, but I would like to see you tell those you represent that you are opposing a very generous package in business rates and the reliefs that this Government will provide. You will be opposing investment in education on our trade strategy, on a range of other infrastructure projects. Scotland remains an attractive place to live, work and invest. It has been the Tories who have been talking to Scotland down, and we are not passing on your Tory tax cuts. However, if there is divergence in our tax proposition, it is because this Government, this party believes in the social contract, and that is free education, not tuition fees, free prescriptions, free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of bridge tolls, the council tax freeze during those difficult times, free personal care as it touched upon, and, of course, no compulsory redundancies for Scottish Government and health service workforce, as well as, of course, the massive investment in the NHS as well. The Tory party is actually for tax rises, but only if you are poor, only if you are seeking education, or if you happen to live south of the border where, under the Conservatives, council tax has rocketed with a UK Tory Government. It is the case that the Tories want to put up taxes, but only if you are poor or you are sick or you are seeking opportunity through education, arguably Robin Hood in reverse is a Conservative party in Scotland. We believe that in a budget that will deliver stability, that will stimulate our economy, that invests in education, that tackles inequality, focuses on attainment, supports every part of the country, invests in our infrastructure, listens to the voices in Parliament and responds. I believe that it is a good budget. I am very proud of this budget. I look forward to taking it to the country, and I believe that this chamber can unite, even at this late stage, to recognise that this extra spending of £900 million is good for Scotland in building a better and a fairer society and one in which we can all be proud. That concludes our debate on stage 1 of the budget. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3839 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a revised business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 3839. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 3839 be agreed. We are agreed. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 3768.1 in the name of Kezia Dugdale, which seeks to amend motion 3768 in the name of Derek Mackay on the budget Scotland bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We shall move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3768.1 in the name of Kezia Dugdale is yes, 23, no, 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 3768 in the name of Derek Mackay on the budget Scotland bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 3768 in the name of Derek Mackay is yes, 67, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.