 Exact? The next item of business with a debate on motion 2838 in the name of Myles Briggs on protecting local government funding. I invite members to participate in the debate and press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I can advise the chamber, given that we are in the chat function, that is the time to respect their lists of comments on the debate. I would be grateful if members would stick to their time allocation and we will probably have to accommodate any interventions in I want to open today's Scottish Conservative debate on local government finance by thanking all of those who work in our local authorities across Scotland. It is incredibly important that we thank them for what they have done during the pandemic and going the extra mile to support all of our communities. Today's debate is an important one for the Parliament to consider, because this SNP green budget is not acceptable and will not help services recover from the pandemic. After 15 years of this SNP Government, under funding local government in Scotland, there is increasing concern over the long-term financial sustainability of local government finances and the problems facing our Scottish councils that have been allowed to build up under this Government with no reform or leadership shown by SNP ministers. Put simply, council leaders across Scotland have nothing else that they can cut to save money or balance their books. How we adequately fund local government is vitally important and something that we all agree on. For many individuals and families, the local services that they depend on are delivered by their local council. SNP ministers have underfunded local councils for many years. From 2007 to 2019, the Scottish Government's budget increased at more than double the rate of the grant SNP ministers passed on to local councils. The question today is a simple one. Why is it that SNP ministers have delivered such a poor financial settlement again this year? I respect the member's position on supplementing local government budget. Where would he take it from? We have been absolutely clear. Firstly, the finance secretary has seen £3.9 billion of additional Barnett consequentials from the UK Government. That should be handed on to local government, and that is where we stand on the side of the chamber. We want to see a fair deal for local authorities where the funding that the Scottish Government receives is adequately handed on to local authorities. He will note that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that, year on year, the Scottish budget is down 5.2 per cent accounting for inflation. I want to see a fair settlement for local government in inflation proof as well, but for him to be consistent, does he not reckon that the UK Government needs to make sure that the Scottish budget is inflation proof too? In terms of that very fact, the member needs to understand that the money that his Government supports have been given has not handed on those Barnett consequentials to local authorities. It is not just Barnett consequentials looking at the national insurance contribution compensation. That has not also been passed on. When he comes to raise these concerns in the chamber, I think that he needs to speak to his own ministers to make sure that they have passed on those Barnett consequentials. I hope that, in bringing forward this debate today, it will give the SNP Green Government a chance to think again and look at how they provide a fair deal for councils and the resources that they need to deliver such vital local services. I fully respect that they might not want to hear this from me, but maybe they should listen to their own council leaders. I welcome the U-turn that we have heard this week that Nicola Sturgeon and I believe that the finance secretary will now meet council leaders across Scotland. After the furious backlash that we have seen from SNP Green Government's £371 million real-term cuts, it is clear that, as things stand, the budget settlement for local government will see a real-terms cut for local government funding. The core local government budget has been frozen in cash terms, which represents a real-term cut of around £271 million for our local authorities. An analysis by COSLA found that additional policy obligations that are placed on local authorities for 2022-23 have also been underfunded by £100 million. SNP Green ministers have repeatedly said that they respect and want to work in partnership with our local authorities. We will now see, as we see the budget come back to Parliament next week, what that actually looks like and what is in this amendment that we have seen from the Government today, no answers have been put forward. In fact, all we see is that ministers are offering a citizens assembly to look at sources of local government funding. SNP ministers do not need a citizens assembly to tell them that they are short-changing local government. They simply need to pick up the phone to SNP council leaders. Deputy Presiding Officer, we need to see a sea change and we need to see a new partnership built between the Scottish Government and local authorities. That is why Scottish Conservatives are proposing a new fair funding formula to make sure that councils receive their fair share of funding when the Scottish Government does well. Although the Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish Government's budget is linked to UK Government spending, there is no such protection for local government and services that it provides. That would help to deliver a new financial framework and ensure that councils automatically receive a set percentage of the Scottish Government budget each year, mirroring the relationship that I have outlined between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. That would prevent SNP ministers from consistently asking our councils to do more with less. The situation that we see today is that SNP and Green Ministers on the one hand ring-fence council budgets for their Scottish Government priorities and, on the other hand, cut council funding. I hope today that all parties will unite to support our local councils. SNP Green Ministers cannot continue to simply pass the blame for their cuts to local councils. The SNP Green budget has yet again put council leaders at the length and breadth of Scotland in a position to have to make huge cuts to services or dramatically increase council tax. At the very time, ministers have received the record levels of funding from the UK Government. SNP Green Ministers need to think again that the Scottish Government must provide the resources that are needed to fund our good schools, social care services and properly fund our councils to help to build stronger, safer and more prosperous countries. That is something that we should all unite again around. I hope that the cabinet secretary in the debate listening will understand that she needs to look again at the Government budget that she has provided and to move the motion in my name. Thank you very much indeed Mr Briggs. I now call on the minister to speak to and move amendment 2838.2. Mr Arthur, for around six minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer and I move the amendment in my name. I would like to open my contribution by welcoming this debate and also, as Miles Briggs has done and I am sure many others will do as well, recognise the crucial role that councils play in delivering public services and supporting communities and the part that they play in delivering a national recovery. We may disagree at times but hopefully we can all agree on this. We are ultimately today talking about difficult budget choices. Core to this afternoon's debate is the fact that the Scottish budget in 2022-23 is lower than it was in 2021-22. That is not my conclusion nor that of the cabinet secretary for finance and economy. That is the conclusion of the independent Scottish fiscal commission who in their economic and fiscal forecast report said, and I quote, Overall, the Scottish budget in 2022-23 is 2.6 per cent lower than in 2021-22. After accounting for inflation, the reduction is 5.2 per cent, a point made in an intervention by my colleague Neil Gray. I thank the minister for giving way. Could he give us a bit of a comparison from what the budget was two years ago? Last year we had a huge increase because of the Covid spend. What I would note is that it was about two years ago that my colleague Kenny Gibson raised the issue of a new virus that had been detected in China in the Parliament, which I believe was the first mention of it. The difference between now and two years ago is that we are still in the teeth of the global pandemic. I appreciate, Mr Lumsons colleagues, that Westminster might be waving their masks in the chamber and think that the pandemic is over. The reality is that the pandemic certainly is not over and there is a huge amount of work to be undertaken in recovery, and that has to be taken into account in the settlement that this Government is given from Westminster. Despite a 5.2 per cent reduction, the Scottish budget delivers record funding of £18 billion for health and social care, doubles the Scottish child payment and introduces free bus travel for everyone under the age of 22. It delivers an overall settlement to local government worth more than £12.5 billion, an increase of £588.2 million in real terms. In the context of a 5.2 per cent real terms reduction in the overall budget, the local government settlement has increased by 5.1 per cent again in real terms. That growth and overall settlement was acknowledged by the COSLA resource spokesperson in evidence of the local government housing and planning committee last week. Having taken the decision to pass on all front-line health and care consequentials in full, we have then protected local government by providing a flat cash core budget alongside a further £1.4 billion, which is transferred from other portfolios for joint priorities. By definition, a flat cash core allocation does not take account of inflation. The cabinet secretary for finance and the economy has acknowledged that we cannot in inflation proof any part of the Scottish Government budget, such as the nature of inflation right now. We do not underestimate the challenges that this allocation presents, but it is simply not possible to inflation proof all budget lines when the overall budget is not inflation proofed. I am afraid that I need to make a wee bit more progress because I am going to take an intervention from Mr Briggs in a moment. Acknowledging those challenges, we must also be honest that pay increases and changes in the design of national insurance are inflationary pressures. It is therefore not correct to claim that there is a real terms cut to the local government budget and I also claim that it does not take account of pay inflation or increase employer national insurance contributions. I am going to take an intervention from Mr Briggs to ask first. How has COSLA highlighted the fact that the Scottish Government has not handed on the national insurance contribution compensation of around £70 million? If the budget is so wonderful as it is making out, why does his fellow SNP leader of Renfrewshire Council, Ian Nicholson, have to write to the First Minister to ask for that to be looked at again? I recognise the challenges that we face in our budget are ultimately a reflection of the challenges that we face as a consequence for the UK Government's settlement to the Scottish Parliament. We get to the core point because funding that is handed on to local government is funding that is not handed on elsewhere. I recognise that some in the chamber may disagree with the Government's decisions to pass on the front line health and social care consequences in full to help to tackle child poverty and inequality by doubling the game-changing Scottish child payment, by providing more than £500 million to councils to support investment in health and social care, to allocate £145 million extra for additional teachers and support staff or the money to support the expansion of free-school meals with an extra £64 million in revenue and £30 million of capital funding. We take the view that these are not simply Scottish Government priorities, but they are joint priorities with local government. I believe that they also attract cross-party support from across the chamber. However, if Opposition parties do not agree with those investments, they are fully entitled to propose alternative but balanced funding proposals ahead of the budget bill next week. The budget also provides councils with a number of flexibilities, including over council tax rate setting, as they requested. We have reaffirmed our commitment to developing a local government fiscal framework in partnership with COSLA. I want to be clear that any framework must be developed in partnership with local government. It must be workable and learn lessons from the implementation of a broader Scottish fiscal framework. Crucially, it cannot put funding up for the NHS at risk. It will be important for local government to bring forward fiscal framework proposals that can then be explored in partnership. However, there is no reason why those proposals need to only come from local government. In this regard, I want to note and conclude the Conservatives' motion. I want to welcome the contribution that My Old Briggs is making. I hope that other Conservative members, such as Mr Briggs or Ms Smith, in summing up later on in the debate, can provide more detail about how that would work in practice, because clearly there would be significant consequences elsewhere in the budget. I want to again welcome the debate and say that I am looking forward to the contributions from members across the chamber. Here we are again, another debate about local government budgets, another SNP budget and another devastating raid on those council budgets, providing absolutely vital local services. Another £371 million has gone from the core revenue budget in real terms and a further 4% ring-fenced. The minister, like many of his ministerial colleagues, has stood up and said how much they value local government workers. I think that it was President Biden who said, do not tell me what you value, show me your budget and I will tell you. Local government workers, people who rely on local government services, hear that loud and clear from the Government. I assume that the member wants to see the local government settlement go up. Every penny is allocated, so where would it come from in the budget? It is clear that the Scottish Government's budget has increased. We are asking for the Scottish Government to respect local government. According to the Accounts Commission, the Scottish Government's budget has said that, since 2013-14, budgets have reduced granted that budgets have reduced in the Scottish Government by 0.8 per cent. At the same time, the Scottish Government has hammered local government, cutting their budgets by 4.7 per cent, magnifying every single budget cut that they have been passed on by the Tories and hammering local services. We will support the motion today because we believe that it is simply unsustainable for the SNP to continue cutting council budgets to the bone. Services are already at breaking point. Today, I would normally take as many as you like, but I only have five minutes. Today, the President of Caws said that tax rises are inevitable, that cuts are inevitable, unless, as the motion states, the Government delivers an improved financial settlement. Those are not choices. SNP cuts forced on local government is part of a sustained campaign that has been going on for a decade now and has cost services £937 million since 2013. Were the European Charter of Local Self-Government Bill enforced, the Government would clearly be in breach of that legislation. However, there are a couple of differences this year than we have seen in the previous decade. The minister and cabinet secretary's SNP council colleagues have finally said in public what they have been saying behind closed doors for a decade that they cannot cope with any more cuts. We also know that the Greens are in government and have signed off on those cuts, so the cabinet secretary has no chance to find that extra couple of hundred million pounds for a deal. However, most concerning of all, we are in the grip of the biggest cost of living crisis that we have seen in years. Inflation is the highest that has been in five years. The cabinet secretary took to the radio this morning to say that she could not inflation-proof budgets and that it was inflation's doing that brings spend and increase, jumping from 58 to 62 per cent this year, but she could not say who caused the portion of the budget that councils have maximum flexibility for delivering local priorities to fall. It is worth knowing that in 2013 that controlled spend was just 25 per cent. It is almost as if the SNP Government wants us to forget that local councils are democratically elected, accountable to their own voters. The cabinet secretary also said that only 7 per cent of the budget is ring-fenced for grants for SNP government projects, but even on that count, which I dispute, according to SPICE, that has grown from 0.1 per cent of budgets in 2013, has grown 70 times over. We agree that local governments need a fiscal framework to make decisions, which are best for their local communities, but we are alive to the fears that that could bake in a decade of cuts. Our amendment seeks to qualify the set percentage that the Conservative motion proposes, as we cannot accept continued pernissus ring-fencing to take place within that set proportion of the Scottish budget. Finally, the issue of local government staff pay must be heard. That budget is disastrous for the tireless army of local government workers. Not only do they have the task of implementing yet more cuts, they are doing so in spite of the exhausting task of keeping the country moving through two years of the pandemic, using community workers, carers, cleansing staff, teaching assistants, street cleaners and so many more have worked flat out to keep the services that we all have relied on, that we have all clapped for, still going, but 55 per cent of them earn below £25,000 per annum. Last week, Joanna Baxter of Unison told us how angry and frustrated they were, and that councils will see a difficult industrial landscape ahead. I ask the Government to reconsider, deliver a budget that can deliver a fair pay increase for staff, deliver a fair settlement for local authorities and remove the amendment in my name. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Griffin. I now call on Willie Rennie for around four minutes, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have learned something new today, which is that Kenny Gibson discovered Covid. What we already knew was that the local government has had the rough end of the SNP Government's priorities for years. This year's budget is no different from all the rest, as Mr Gibson knows. We get the usual conjurer's trick from ministers, who send ring-fend parcels of money to local councils for new tasks and claim that money is for old tasks. The money goes up, but the costs of the new responsibilities go even higher, which leaves councils to cut other services. This year's funding settlement is harsher than most, with hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts. That is why councillors of all political persuasions, including SNP councillors, are so angry this year. Whilst other services across the UK have been compensated for the national insurance increase, local government here has been left with a big hole in its finances. When the roads are full of potholes, the streets are covered in rubbish, the schools do not have the funds that they need and community services are shut, there is just one place that they should look, and that is the SNP Government sitting in St Andrews House. Meanwhile, the SNP's 15-year-old plans to scrap the unfair council tax have not moved one inch forward. I have attended endless government talking shops on this, and if hot air could scrap the council tax, we would have a new tax every single year. That is all going to change now. I have new great hope because the Greens are in government. I am looking forward to the scrapping of the council tax bill forthcoming led by Patrick Harvie. We all live in great hope of new times, but today is a rehash of last year's Conservative motion. It has not learned from its mistakes. We all remember that, in the past, the UK Government has allocated Barnett consequentials for health. The Scottish Conservatives have wanted to be guaranteed for health, but not anymore. In 2018, the then Prime Minister Theresa May said that they would increase national health service funding, which would mean £2 billion of consequentials for the Scottish Government by 2023. Back then, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Dave Mundell, remember those glory days, urged the First Minister and the Scottish Government to invest this extra money in improving health services. With today's motion, all of that would be completely out of the window. Under the Conservatives' plan today, between 2018 and 2023, more than £600 million would be automatically removed from the NHS Scotland annual budget. People expect their Parliament to judge the different needs and not just delete hundreds of millions of pounds from a budget because the Conservative computer tells them to do exactly that. Instead, we need a fair funding settlement for councils based on good judgment of MSPs. Just as Holyrood does, I want councils to be able to raise the majority of the money that they spend. If they control the purse rings, they are free to determine their own future in partnership with the communities that they serve. If councils or voters do not like decisions on tax and spend, they can chuck them out. We need a framework that nurtures that relationship, and that is why we cannot support the Conservative motion today. Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. After that build-up from Mr Rennie, I call Kenneth Gibson for around four minutes to be followed by— Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like all budgets, 22 and 23 is about choice, prioritising how best to invest and services infrastructure and people at time of financial challenge. With fiscal rectitude, the cabinet secretary and wider Scottish Government has made its choices and set out its priorities. As we know, the Scottish budget is limited by the forecast of the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission beyond which the finance secretary cannot go. I, too, would like to see more resources allocated to local government who would not. This year, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made clear that this Parliament will suffer a real-terms courtesy of Miles Tory bosses at Westminster. The Scottish Fiscal Commission said in evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is worth quoting again. The overall Scottish budget in 22 and 23 is 2.6 per cent lower than in 21 and 22. After accounting for inflation, the reduction is 5.2 per cent. I say to Miles Briggs and his colleagues, tell us how much an additional resource should be allocated to local government he did not say. From actual Scottish Government resources, it is not the mythical funds that he mentioned. From where should these extra resources demanded to be found, given that the Scottish ministers have such limited room for manoeuvre? Should we raise taxes if so, which ones? Who should pay? How much should they pay? If money is to be allocated from other Scottish budget portfolios, which ones? Health, transport, net zero? How much should each portfolio budget be cut to provide additional funding for local authorities? Unless answers are forthcoming, it just sounds like hot air and posturing to me. Oh well, it's your motion, Mr Briggs. Miles Briggs is grateful, but he will be aware that the Scottish Government budget has increased by 7 per cent. That is more than inflation, so that's exactly where the funding can come from. Maybe another suggestion. Why don't we not spend £7 million on ministers being ferried around and give that to local authorities? I wonder how much Whitehall actually spends on ferrying ministers around. I mean, well, these mythical figures are a nonsense, which is why the Independent Fiscal Commission dismissed them. We are talking about reality here. Presiding officer, I'm also curious as to how genuine the concern of Tory MSPs is for our local authorities. Can Miles please tell us if local government is so important to the parties support so devotedly? Why has the Tory government eviscerated it so ferociously south of the border? According to the Institute for Government resources to English and Welsh local authorities, including retained business rates from UK Tory government, we're cut by an eye watering 37 per cent in real terms between 2010 and 2019-20, from £41 to £26 billion in 2019-20 prices. Funding from the UK coalition, because we clearly recall the Lib Dem role in that, and Tory governments were slashed. Rates of council tax were increased and English local authorities raised 25 per cent more council tax in real terms in 2019-20 compared to a decade earlier. Comparing Scotland, England and Wales, there is simply no relationship between the solid support that the Scottish Government has provided to our councils post-financial crash and through austerity and the devastation wrth on local authority services down south. The reality is that no one takes seriously Tory claims to be advocates for local government. Labour, of course, just wanted to drone on a bit alleged SNP cuts that they seek to blame on the Scottish Government rather than their better together allies. Yet when former leader Jeremy Corbyn, remember him, was asked about the depths of cuts imposed by Labour in Wales, Mr Corbyn meagly said that he had no choice but to pass them on from Westminster. In a garden ring ffencing, 7 per cent they bleat. I recall that there were 60 budget lines ring ffence for local government when the Lib Dems and Labour were last in power. Wendy Alexander was calling for full ring ffencing of local government budgets. However, Willie Rennie was right to say that, in this Tory motion, is a bizarre idea that councils should automatically receive a set percentage of the Scottish Government budget each year, while local government and not health education justice, with impending 5.2 per cent cut, this daff Tory proposal will be guaranteed to deliver less funding to our councils and all governments need flexibility. They do not have a crystal ball to see into the future to where unexpected financial shocks met our eyes. For instance, who saw the financial impact of a pandemic coming down the road in 2019? Through methods ranging from resource borrowing to the less palatable fiscal drag, the Scottish Government is delivering local government tax flexibility in the best possible settlement possible and the financial straitjacket imposed upon us by the Tories at Westminster. Only with independence will the Scottish Government have the ability to deliver the budget for local government, and every other portfolio it will all want to see support by the Scottish Government amendment. I would like to be followed by Michelle Thomson in four minutes, please, Mr Thomson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. He might be a world leading epidemiologist, but he cannot make his sums that up. I would like to thank my Scottish Conservative colleagues for bringing forward this important debate today, but before I begin, can I draw attention to my register of interests as a serving councillor in East Lothian? The financial crisis facing Scotland's local authorities is stark, and it is entirely one of the SNP's making. As a councillor representing a ward in East Lothian, which is within the south of Scotland region, I am only too well aware of how grave the problem is facing our council. Let there be no doubt that the SNP's austerity agenda for local government continues. With East Lothian Council set to lose out on £4.5 million this year, the Government has starved this and every other council for years, and the situation is now serious. The picture that it paints is so bad that it now looks vindictive. Despite a record settlement from Westminster, the Scottish Government has cut East Lothian's budget by £1 million in real terms next year, and it will be a further £3.5 million worse off as a result of changes to the floor-based funding formula that pulls funding with other council. It is simply unfair that one of the fastest-growing areas in Scotland is being repeatedly penalised by the SNP, and I urge the Scottish Government to stop changing the residents of East Lothian, but it is not just the people of East Lothian that are losing out. Right across Scotland, the picture is the same. As Miles Briggs pointed out, COSLA estimates that £371 million of core funding for Scottish councils will be cut in real terms this year alone. That is £371 million of cuts to roads, social services, education, housing and refuse collection across Scotland. Whilst the SNP Government starves communities of funding, it is forcing councils to raise taxes for millions of Scots just at the time—I will not give way of when he got four minutes, Sadi—just at the time when the cost of living is rising. That is why the Scottish Conservatives are proposing a clear solution to this crisis, a crisis of the SNP's making. We want to see a permanent settlement for Scotland's councils, councils that ring fences a percentage of the overall Scottish budget for councils funding. We need a fair deal for our councils, and we need that deal now. However, the situation emerging in front of us is starker and more serious still. After years of failing to fund our councils, the SNP is stepping up their assault. The Scottish Government's plan for the creation of a national care service is an assault on local government and an attack on local accountability. What started with the feeling review into adult social care, arguably an area in need of funding, reform and new thinking is fast becoming just the latest in a long line of SNP power grabs, and it is perhaps the greatest power grab in the history of devolution. Let's look at the words of COSLA President Alison Evison. She described the national care service plan as an attack on localism. On the latest cuts to local councils, all 32 Scottish council leaders have written to the First Minister to tell her that enough is enough. We know that the SNP does not do dissent, but even council leaders from the First Minister's own party are worried. John Alexander, SNP council leader from Dundee, has described the recent Scottish budget as perhaps, and I quote, the toughest in recent memory. After years of hollowing out councils, the SNP is now mounting a direct assault on local government. The SNP wants to scrap local accountability, it wants to impose total ministerial control on care. The SNP is continuing to raid council budgets to pay for pet projects. When it comes to the SNP and our cash-strap councils, COSLA is correct, enough is enough. Recent dates have once again highlighted the hypocrisy of the Tories, perhaps they have already forgotten the waste of public funds and awarding PPE contracts to their pals, the writing off only yesterday was incredible, £4.3 billion for fraudulent business Covid claims and were stead focusing on their penchant for partying. Even as the Tories were laying down the motion for today's debate, only this week in Westminster, their Home Secretary, Priti Patel, launched an outrageous and ill-informed attack on Scotland's councils. Forgive me if I am a little cynical about Tory's support of Scotland's councils. The motion is defective, and I will focus just on a few of the issues given the limited time available. The single ask in the motion is to create a funding settlement that is entirely fixed to a percentage of the Scottish Government budget, and it is flawed. For example, it does not allow the flexibility for the Government to deal with unforeseen shock. This has been mentioned earlier in the debate. The current pandemic is a good example, but the fallout from the 2008 economic crisis was another example. Had the Tories put down a sensible economic motion seeking to support calls by many for increased borrowing powers, that would have been a motion that we could all have rallied around. The motion is also at serious fault in failing to consider economic uncertainties at the current time. For example, during the 2021 forecast by the OBR, the Scottish Fiscal Commission and independent forecasters were all subject to considerable change. The forecasts, published in the lead-up to the Scottish budget, failed to take account of the then unknown and arguably unanticipated Ovicron variant. That is likely to lead to further significant downward changes in forecasts. To fail to understand the consequence of such uncertainties for Government funding is simply not realistic. Of course, one other shock, the word that does not speak its name but, this time, deliberately created by the Tories, has been Brexit. That has had serious implications for local authorities. For example, the UK Government's plans for the replacement of EU structural funds. In the response to information requests from the Finance and Public Administration Committee, very serious concerns have been raised by Scotland's local authorities. These include the questioning of a seriously flawed methodology that does not respond to Scottish conditions and the failure by the UK Government to fund the resources required to operate the replacement funds. Yet nowhere in this motion is the UK Government called out for the harms being inflicted by them on Scottish councils. Of course, the Scottish Government finally and our local authorities will be constrained by the operation of the Tory-inspired Internal Market Act and subsidy control bill going through Westminster. Despite all of those uncertainties and constraints, the Tory motion fails to recognise, despite all of the challenges, that the Scottish Government has come up with an overall settlement in excess of £12.5 billion, representing a real-terms increase of some 5.1 per cent. As has been pointed out previously, the Scottish Government is already committed to working with COSLA to develop a rules-based fiscal framework to support future funding settlements for local government, and I hope that all parties can support that. Finally, no lectures please from a Tory party that rewards its own attacks our local authorities from Westminster and blocs at every turn the need to enhance this Parliament's financial and economic powers. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by reminding members that I am still a member of the Scottish National Party Council, and I have been a council there for 10 years almost, and it has not continued to be one of the most fulfilling roles that I have ever had the honour to do. Indeed, representing the community that you grew up in is a very honourable thing. As a councillor, I have been in the computer for education and the authority of the council, and I have seen first-hand over the past decade how the Scottish National Party Government has worn down local government, forcing those in charge to cut services as the budgets are continually cut year after year. It has been incredibly challenging to be a local representative when you are consistently faced with budget processes that bring more and more cuts. Indeed, I think of the anxious weight that councillors have every year awaiting a settlement from this Government, the long meetings to discuss how to plug some of the gaps using reserves or council tax, and the painful consultation processes trying to decide what the least worst option is in a sea of unthinkable options. I am not sure that colleagues in the chamber who have not had to do any of this can fully understand the sleepless nights that it causes, thinking about people's jobs, people's services and the communities that we care about. It is not just councillors who feel like this. It is also the staff who work so hard in local government too, because nobody seeks out a career in a local authority looking to make cuts. Essentially, the choices of government have made so many of our dedicated officers in local government managers of cuts. I have watched the stress of hard-working officers in education, social work and environment, having to spend so much time coming up with unthinkable options just to square the budget. We have also seen our workers stretched in as they are asked to do more and more to make up the gaps created by cuts. Our key workers, people the First Minister and the Cabinet applauded every first night in the pandemic. Stress is being piled on to those workers, 55 per cent of which are paid below £25,000 a year. That is shameful. In my ward, I see every day how cuts forced down from government are hitting our communities and the most vulnerable. People support assistant numbers cut, road budgets reduced, social care on its knees. The reality of all of this, Deputy Presiding Officer, is that people across Scotland are being failed and there is no sign of it getting better. We hear from the Government that they have delivered initiatives such as free early learning and childcare and free school meals, but there is not nearly enough funding to deliver the reality of this on the ground and to ensure that the core infrastructure can be maintained to make these things happen. Of course, the Government is always keen to hold up its manifesto commitment, but what is the reality on the ground where local government has to deliver the reform to council tax? It never appeared. Funding to refurbish every play park in Scotland is fairly a fraction of what was required. A free bike for every people who cannot afford one can sign it to a pilot that does not even scratch the surface. Empty words and broken promises from the SNP. What does the future hold? Even more cuts to local government budgets. Last month's budget saw a core funding cut of £371 million, a budget that makes no provision for pay, inflation or increased demand for services, nor, indeed, as we have already heard, for the increased burden of national insurance contributions. To place those cuts on a wider context, that is all happening as we see one of the biggest increases to the cost of living in decades. Such is the scale of the problem is that we have now seen unprecedented reaction from all 32 council leaders in Scotland, calling for the Government to meet with them to discuss the settlement. Because enough is enough. In concluding, what is clear is that the SNP Government has failed local government and those who live in our communities. Because cuts to councils are cuts to communities, and if the cost does not change, the very fabric of our communities will be irreparably damaged. Thank you very much, Mr O'Kane. I now call on Ross Greer to be followed by Douglas Lumsden. Again, four minutes, Mr Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been a pattern for years in this Parliament that the Tory benches uttered not a word of concern or objection when their Westminster colleagues cut Scotland's budget, but they rushed to this chamber to condemn every perceived cut then made by the Scottish Government's budget and to make spending demands that exceed the money available. As has already been mentioned, this year they are going as far as claiming that a 5 per cent real terms cut from Westminster is somehow an increase. We are all guilty of picking and choosing the figures that suit our position best in those debates, but that goes beyond that. It is actively misleading to claim that a cut is a significant increase. As the Government amendment notes, it is contrary to the Scottish Fiscal Commission's own analysis. Not one Conservative member in this debate so far has been able to explain how the Scottish Government is expected to sustain the costs of the pandemic from core funds without that impacting on other services. That is the result of Covid consequentials being withdrawn when Covid and its effects are still very much with us. As an example, bus and rail use are down by a third in Scotland, and that is not expected to change significantly in the next financial year. That requires significant subsidy to keep essential services operating. Without last year's Covid consequentials repeating, the choice is to either provide those subsidies from the core transport budget, putting pressure on other areas or to let our public transport system collapse overnight as the operators withdraw. I presume that the Tories do not want to see that cut. I would be delighted to accept an intervention from Mr Briggs, but I simply want to repeat the question that has been asked him of others. With £371 million being caused as asked, one repeated by the Conservatives today, and all money available to the Scottish Government already allocated, from which budget would he cut £371 million to fulfil what costs are asking for? As I have said before, the Government has got £3.9 billion in additional consequentials. Those are the Government's decisions to cut funding, and we have not had an answer quite yet from ministers over the national insurance increase. Ministers who support sitting on the front bench here have £70 million that they have not passed on to local authorities for the national insurance compensation. Why is that? Will the Government and its green colleagues ask them to do that at the coming budget? In the first instance, there is no specific consequential for the national insurance increase. There are broad consequentials, but Mr Briggs has yet again failed to answer the question. Every penny available to the Scottish Government has been allocated. There is no money sitting on allocated, but the Conservatives will not explain where they will cut £371 million. Causal's point is entirely legitimate. It is disingenuous of the Conservatives to pretend that it can be fulfilled without significant impacts elsewhere. However, despite the pressures on the Scottish Government, the budget delivers a real-terms increase of more than £0.5 billion to councils. That includes an additional £145 million for teacher recruitment. That is enough to fund 2,500 additional posts. There is £30 million in capital funding to facilitate the expansion of free school meals and £60 million for those meals themselves. There is £175 million—no, not at this point, thank you. There is £175 million to fund the pay increase for care sector workers and £200 million more for health and social care. That is not me suggesting that everything is rosy. Causal has a perfectly legitimate case to make for more funding. They are not the only ones. That budget represents the fairest possible distribution of extremely limited funding and extremely challenging circumstances. I have yet to hear from exactly where the opposition would cut £371 million to fulfil what Causal is asking for, or what changes it would make to tax policy to raise that. In fact, the only income tax policy that I can recall that the Tories bring to this Parliament since that power was devolved was a proposed cut for the top 15 per cent of earners, which would have cut further £0.5 billion from our budget. Back in 2018, the Greens made changes to income tax to make it more progressive and to raise additional funds for public services. This year, a further change was made by freezing the higher and top rate thresholds, which will raise a further £106 million. I happen to be of the view that we will need to raise significant additional amounts of money from a variety of sources, both existing and new, over this term if we are to meet the objectives that we all share around child poverty reduction and reaching net zero in particular, and that achieving those targets will require significant increase in funding for local government. That is why the shared policy programme agreed by the two parties of government does commit to delivering both the fiscal framework for local government and a citizens assembly on local government funding. I have my concerns, basically those outlined by Willie Rennie, about the Conservatives' proposal, but I welcome the fact that they have at least brought a specific proposal for ones to this chamber. Both the fiscal framework and the citizens assembly will be transformational in the long term, but I accept that they do not ease the pressure on councils in this financial year. You do need to conclude now, Mr Greer. The Scottish Government has done what it can to ease that pressure. If the Tories are serious about removing it completely, they should do it to their own colleagues in government at Westminster, because that is the situation of the Conservative Party's making. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Greer, and I call on Douglas Lumsden, who will be followed by John Mason again four minutes. Mr Lumsden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to remind members of my register of interests that shows that I am still a councillor. Throughout this pandemic, our local authorities have been on the front line of providing essential services to our communities. They have gone above and beyond, organised food parcels, online learning, emergency assistance, support to resilience groups. The list goes on and on. They have done so while continuing to provide all the usual essential services such as caring for our most vulnerable, fixing our roads, emptying our bins and providing community support. They deserve our thanks, our praise and, more importantly, financial support to enable them to continue to provide these essential services. This is why the funding settlement announced by the cabinet secretary is nothing short of a slap in the face to all those local authorities that have gone above and beyond what is expected on behalf of this devolved Government. Up and down Scotland, councillors are currently pouring over budget spreadsheets, agonising over how they can continue to provide these essential services while facing a huge budget cut. They are all desperate not to raise council tax too much, given the pressure on the cost of living in their communities, but this Scottish Government has passed the buck. They have cut-core council funding and now expect councillors to raise council tax to fill the gap or reduce vital services. It is simply not acceptable. Council leaders are in agreement that the Scottish Government is ignoring them, with calls for meetings being ignored, engagement lacking and major policy announcements such as the national care service consultation being made with no discussion or no collaboration. The way that this devolved Scottish Government treats its local government partners is a disgrace. The Scottish Government has many warm words regarding prevention in terms of drug deaths, but it also matters like climate change and educational attainment. Early intervention is key to so many challenges that we are facing, but it is local government where the prevention work takes place. Local government provides youth clubs, social centres, sports facilities, lunch clubs and school counselling services. All those much-needed facilities are now at risk as local government budgets continue. Without those preventative services, how will we continue to tackle the challenges that we face at the earliest possible opportunity? If the devolved Government was serious about prevention, it would be investing in local government and not pulling the rug from under its feet. I turn to the question of national insurance. I asked the minister to answer this one question. COSLA confirmed to local leaders this week that the Scottish Government has received consequential payments to cover the national insurance rise for local government employees, and yet they are refusing to pass that on to councils. In England, councils are being funded for the national insurance increase, but not in Scotland. When local government is the backbone of our communities, surely will the minister give us assurance today that the consequential money received for national insurance contributions will now be passed over to local authorities. Our local councils have done us proud over the past two years. We should be thanking them, building them up, recognising the vital work that they do and treating them like equal partners in Government. Instead, this Government treats them with contempt. It is time to give our local councils a fair funding settlement that reflects the vital work that they do, helping them to deliver that work and, in turn, strengthening our towns, villages and our local communities. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Lumsden. Before calling Mr Mason, I would remind colleagues that Mr Mason is the final speaker in the open debate, and everybody that has participated in the debate needs to be here for closing speeches. Mr Mason, up to four minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to take part in today's debate. As others have said, I find the Conservative motion interesting in that it seeks more money for local government but does not say where that money should come from, and the Labour amendment takes a similar path. Of course, the main options for raising such money are, firstly, increased taxes, which I personally would be open to. However, normally we understand that Tories are against tax rises, and in fact they usually do a lot of gunning and whining that our income tax is higher than England's. Or secondly, the other main option is to reduce expenditure somewhere else, and the most obvious option to cut is NHS spending, as that is one of the largest parts of the Scottish budget. So which is it? Are the Conservatives now open to tax increases? Or are they seriously suggesting that we cut the health budget while we are still not out of the Covid pandemic? For a party that claims to understand business and the economy, surely they understand that the books have to balance. However, I see nothing in their motion about the source of any additional funding for local government and neither have they given their reply to previous speakers. Secondly, I find the concept of a ring-fenced percentage of the budget somewhat bizarre. That would take away the powers of this Parliament and MSPs to examine the budget each year and consider where their needs are greatest. Thus, over the last couple of years, with the Covid pandemic, we have had to reprioritise funding. That has particularly emphasised the health services, business support and, in fact, local government, too. I have to say that I do not think that ring-fencing the budget and that I implication that ignoring any kinds of needs assessment would be to say the least reasonable. There is also the separate but linked question of allocating local government funding between the 32 councils. I would also argue that that should be based on need as well. If Aberdein was one of the richest parts of Scotland and so got less central funding, that was right at the time. However, if that is no longer the case, then, by all means, let us reassess the needs. However, that process has to be in conjunction with COSLA and all the councils. The wider question is how local government should be funded and whether more of that funding should be raised by local councils. I would very much support that concept. Apart from anything else, that would give councils more freedom by reducing their dependence on the centre for funding. However, there will always be the need for some central funding in order to support councils who cannot raise the resources that they require for the needs in their area. However, again, that has to be based on need rather than giving everyone the same. I would dearly love, as others have said and I would be in agreement with, that we should replace council tax, which is a question that has been dragging on far too long, particularly as Willie Rennie mentioned that. At some point, we need to bite the bullet here in Parliament and agree on a replacement tax. Such a tax will not please everyone and there will inevitably be winners and losers. However, better funding for local government going forward will inevitably mean that those who are earning more or who have more property and other assets will need to pay more. Let us remember that tax paid as a share of GDP is only around 33 per cent in the UK, compared to 45 per cent in France and 46 per cent in Denmark. For too long, we have tried to run quality public services in this country without paying the sensible levels of tax that are required. I welcome the work that the Scottish Government and the Finance Committee are planning to do on where we are going with tax in Scotland in the longer term. In summary, we need to be sensible. We can only spend the money that we have and, if the Conservatives or Labour want more for local government, they still have to tell us where it is coming from. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Mason. We now move to closing speeches. I call firstly Daniel Johnson for four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is undoubtedly a very important topic but I am afraid that I am not sure that this afternoon's debate has said hugely much more light. However, let me try and build some consensus, as is indeed invited by Tom Arthur at the beginning, which is that local government is hugely important. I think that that is part of the problem as we keep discussing council funding and local government funding, when the reality is that this money pays for roads, schools, libraries, playgrounds and social services that keep the most vulnerable safe. That is what we need to focus on. Like Douglas Lumson said, it is also local government and local councils who have been at the forefront of delivery, the most vital services through the Covid response. Therein, I think that we struggle to find much more consensus. The reality is that this is not just about this budget but about the legacy of 10 years of cuts and underfunding of local government. That is why, on roads, we have seen potholes increase by five fold over the last decade. The £260,000 worth of compensation payments to motorists in Edinburgh just because of those potholes. On libraries, those have been cut by a third and 30 per cent less librarians. We have seen non-core support staff in our schools slashed across the country, so it is difficult to engage with SNP members who claim that there are no cuts. There are only increases. When the accounts commission points out very clearly that there has been a 4.2 real terms cut in local government funding over the last just five years, when Scottish Government funding has reduced by just 0.8 per cent, a five fold increase, taking the cuts indeed passed on by the Tories to the Scottish Government and increasing it by five fold. Let us talk frankly about the numbers. Let us not pretend that there have been no cuts because there have been. That is a crushing blow after the efforts by local government leaders, which is why all 32 local council leaders signed a letter stating that the cuts amount to £371 million in real terms in the current budget. Perhaps, if the SNP members want to deny that figure, they need to explain why so many of their own council leaders signed that letter. Indeed, perhaps we should not be surprised by the lack of clarity by the SNP because their time in government with regard to councils and local government has been marked by consistency. Look at council tax alone. They came into government heralding the fact that they were going to scrap council tax. Laterally, they heralded that they were bringing the ability for councils to set their own council tax back. Last year, they heralded that they were going to freeze council tax again, yet just to herald that the coming budget that yet again the discretion to set council taxes was going to be restored to local government. Which is it? We are all rightly confused by how they value local government, their approach to local government and the reality is that, over 10 years, local governments have seen a billion pounds, almost a billion pounds cut in real terms from their ability to spend. Ultimately, that impacts roads, schools, libraries and playgrounds. Those are the very services that are fabric of our communities, the bedrock that so many people rely on. When we talk about those numbers, let's just remember what the real impacts are. It's about real people and real communities, and that's just suffering because of a billion pounds worth of cuts from this SNP Government over the last decade. Thank you very much indeed. Mr Johnson, I call on the minister to conclude for around five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to members from across the chamber for their contributions this afternoon. Still not getting used to this after two years. Presiding Officer, the Scottish budget has focused on the key priorities of tackling inequalities, addressing climate change and supporting our economic recovery. Scotland's councils share those priorities, and it is clear that our citizens and communities are best served when we work together in partnership at a national and local level. If I could make a little bit more progress, please. In terms of that partnership, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy will join the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, and the Minister for Social Security and Local Government tomorrow for the inaugural strategic review group meeting with the COSLA presidential team. That group will work to drive greater collaborative working, and at the first meeting they will discuss the implications of the budget in more detail. Next week, the First Minister will meet with the COSLA presidential team and political group leaders in response to their letter on the budget to discuss how best to tackle the new phases of the pandemic to progress recovery and strengthen the partnership between national and local government in order to deliver for our communities. I'm going to make a little bit more progress because I'm very tight for time, I'm afraid. Those meetings taking place at the highest levels of government highlight the priority that the Scottish Government places on working with local government to ensure that high-quality public services continue to be delivered across the country. The forthcoming resource spending review will also continue to focus on key priorities, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy is already engaging with COSLA as part of that process. The development of a fiscal framework will also have a direct relevance to the spending review. As I outlined in my opening statement today, a fiscal framework cannot be imposed on local government and must be developed in partnership. Scottish Government and COSLA have now recommenced discussions on the fiscal frameworks that were paused during the pandemic, and substantive work will be taken forward this year. The development of a fiscal framework is also an important part of the on-going work on the local governance review, which considers how powers, responsibilities and resources are shared across national and local spheres of government and with communities. Despite the overall reduction in the resources that are available in the Scottish budget between 2022 and 2023, the total local government settlement has increased by 588.2 million or 5.1 per cent in real terms. Yes, those figures include the additional funding for prioritisations, such as health and social care integration for the expansion of free-skill meals and to provide additional teachers and support staff. However, those are key priorities for all parties. If the budget had not funded those members, I am sure that the outrage that has been expressed today would have been redirected that way. I will give way to Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson. I am very grateful that I will be brief. Will he also acknowledge the accounts commission figures of that longer term, almost 5 per cent real terms, cut over five years? I would say that it was important to recognise, as a context, that we have been in an increasing health budget. The reality is that it is not something that Willie Rennie alluded to in his space. We have protected the health budget. There has, to this amount, always been a consensus around all health consequences that has been passed on. That is certainly the position of the Government, but if other parties have a different view, they should state so clearly. Perhaps that can inform their contributions with regard to where any additional resource for local government should come from in the budget. I still have some time remaining, Presiding Officer. Is that correct? That is correct, Mr Arthur. I will take the intervention for Mr Kerr. He mentioned climate change earlier on. The Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero requires local authorities to help to achieve net zero. Last week, the leader of Aberdeen City Council said that the draft budget will have a severe impact on what we can do in this space. What impact does the minister think that a £371 million cut to council budgets will have on council's ability to meet net zero? It is important to look at the total allocation to local government and to look at the broader resources being allocated towards our net zero ambitions. That has to be seen as a totality, including the support that we are giving to the north-east. I reiterate the points that my colleague the cabinet secretary made in interventions. I recognise that members want to see more money for local government, but this tends to be an annual debate. A year after year after year, what we do not hear is where that resource should come from. If I am not making a political point, I am asking in all sincerity if members want to see additional resources for local government, then from where should it come? If we can get to that place, we will have an opportunity to have a far more constructive conversation and debate around local government finance, and that is something that we would all welcome. When every single council leader in Scotland, including those in SNP-run councils such as Edinburgh and Glasgow and Dundee, are not only demanding a crisis meeting with the First Minister but are also excoriating in their criticism of the budget settlement, that tells its own story. Local government has quite clearly had enough, and the anger transcends party politics. Indeed, it is plain for all to see that this budget settlement has been the last straw after the consecutive years of cuts that Daniel Johnson referred to. Councils are particularly concerned about their ability to provide core services, and especially about the provision of health and social care delivery with its ever-pressing and increasing demands. We know in this Parliament only too well that there is always some debate about budgets and their interpretation. Willie Rennie talked about the conjurer's tricks. Although I have to say, Mr Rennie, I think that you were guilty of being a conjurer yourself, but only to be outdone by Mr Greer, who had extraordinary contorsions today, quite separate from any of your green colleagues, who would have said when you weren't in government. The funding settlement you were talking about what the Scottish Fiscal Commission was saying. It is also saying that both the Scottish Government and the local authorities are agreed on the fact that there is a cash terms settlement for 2021-22-23 that is exactly the same. It is the core issues that go to the heart of this debate this afternoon, because it should be seen in the context of the fact that we have for financial year 2013-14, up until last year, the local government finance settlement decreased in real terms by 2.4 per cent, whereas the Scottish Government's own budget in that time went up by 3.1 per cent. I want, if you don't mind, because I think that we are very pushed for time today, and normally we will when there is budget debates next week. Whatever the understandable and very reasonable calls might be made from other areas of Scottish Government funding, the local government is finding it completely impossible. It has been shortchanged and severely disadvantaged. There is a bigger picture here, because the proportion of the local government budget that is ring-fenced is now four times higher than it was three years ago. Of course, added to that, there are very significant legislative commitments placed upon local authorities because of the Scottish Government's own policy commitments, but when you strip away those legislative commitments about which councils have no discretionary option, there is virtually nothing left about which they can have real autonomy. That is one of the big complaints that COSLA is making. We note that the Scottish Government's argument for the extensive increase in ring-fencing is because there is too great a variation in council performance. We do not need to point out that the relationship between the Scottish Government and the councils is not particularly good just now, and it is probably a debate for another day about how we mend that process. However, I hope that the minister can understand that, for councils that are performing particularly well, this is an absolute slap in the face when it comes to how they carry out their business. Of course, it is true that we will have a situation in April in which there will be some autonomy and freedom for local councils to set their own council tax rates without having to be obliged by the Scottish Government to keep to a particular cap. However, every central government cut to local council finance means a huge potential increase in council tax. That is not my words. That was in the SNP manifesto not that long ago. Of course, it was the same manifesto when it was claiming that it was Scotland's oil. Now it does not seem to want that. If councils are to address the underfunding, they will have to raise council tax. There is no other way out of it this option. That is why we are calling on a different settlement when it comes to the procedures of allowing an agreement between the national government and councils to do that. Back on 9 December, when Kate Forbes presented her budget statement to Parliament, there was virtually no mention of local government, despite the fact that local authorities are delivering so many critical services, as several members have referred to today. To many in this chamber and in local government, I think that that speaks volumes about the disregard that the Scottish Government has for local authorities, not just just now but over a long period of time. Local authorities are not only complaining about being underfunded and underresourced, but also about feeling, as Mark Griffin said, undervalued and constrained by the fact that they are increasingly tied to central government. In other words, they feel that they are having to carry the can for central government and for SNP policy failures. That is not fair, Presiding Officer, and that is why I support the motion in the name of Miles Briggs. That concludes the debate on protecting local government funding in Scotland, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. I will take this opportunity to remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.