 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3576 in the name of Alex Rowley on the Scottish budget. I am a question those who wish to participate in this debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Alex Rowley to speak to you and move the motion up to 13 minutes, Mr Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In moving this motion today and bringing forward this debate, we want to encourage a wider discussion in this Parliament ac datgynnu'r ffordd, i ddylech i wneud gyda'r cymdeithas gwaith o'r cyflogau cyflogau cyflogau gyda'u cyflogau a'r ddaer, ddiddorol i wneud i'n mynd i'w rhan i'w bwysig. Ond, we will make the case today for using the powers of this Parliament to invest in public services, and we will also make the case for using the resources that we have in the most effective and efficient way to tackle the big challenges that we face—of deep-rooted poverty, i'r cyfrifblu i'r mynd ymwur ac i'r cyfrifblu y gynhyrch gwaethol na phwysigol a phwysigol y Llywodraeth i'n ddweudio ddefnyddio i'r economiaid, a phawr i'r cyfrifblu a phwyllwch yn amddangos. O fwy dystiad o'r dweud o'r gael fel â chael yn nhod os gallwn ynchydigol i holl ffach chi, a oedd unrhyw i gael i wavef y cyfrifbwyr y ddyfynu i'r cyfrifbwyr ynswod gydaherwydd iawn byddur those who can pay a bit more to do so but alongside this we also say we must be more ambitious in driving our economy and increasing the tax take in the medium term by supporting more and more people into decent jobs. The budget as it stands does not and will not achieve these aims. Let me begin with local government. I want to make the point if we are to succeed in tackling poverty, closing the attainment gap, developing high-quality local services and growing the economy across Scotland, then we need to do government differently. The fact is that Scotland is one of the most centralised countries in the western world and the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 did not lead to a continuing devolution of power closer to the people. Instead, we have seen politicians in Hollywood trying to control more and more of the power and decision making away from the local level. This centralist approach has led to a much weaker relationship between local and central government in Scotland and all too often a lower quality of service being delivered as a result. John Mason I wonder if the member would accept that the relationship between central and local government was extremely poor under the last Labour-Lib Dem Administration because of ring fencing. Alex Rowley I think that it is a fact that it is extremely broken down the relationship between central and local government. The failure to build on that relationship has also resulted in the failure to bring together the key people and organisations that are needed to plan and drive our economy at the local, regional and national level. One-size-fits-all central control is not best for Scotland. We want to build a new approach of government of equals, accountable to and driven by local communities with a wider partnership that recognises the role of the third sector, business and industry, trade unions, civic society and local communities in facing up to the big challenges of 21st century Scotland. Bruce Crawford I thank Alex Rowley for giving me away at this stage and while you are on the process for part of your speech. Can we have the microphone on please? It is my fault, Presiding Officer. Mr Crawford, have you forgotten your card? I do apologise. I apologise to Alex Rowley for taking an intervention without having my card in. I think that Alex Rowley will know that I generally expect the view of the way he does politics but I wonder if he understands that by forcing a decision on the budget at this time Labour are undermining the role of the finance committee in scrutinising the draft budget. That may not have been Labour's intent but by clearly if Parliament takes a decision on the budget before the committee reports then what is the point of the committee having any deliberations on it at all? Alex Rowley I would hope in the taking board the point that Bruce Crawford makes. I would hope that the finance secretary will listen to the parties in this Parliament and will be open to looking at the concerns that we have so that we can find agreement on the best way forward. However, you will not face up to the big challenges in Scotland by cutting the budget of local public services by £327 million, as proposed by Derek Mackay in his draft budget. That cut of £327 million is confirmed by the independent Scottish Parliament Information Centre and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made similar calculations and argued that the finance minister should think again. Since 2010, we have seen 27,000 jobs disappear from local councils across Scotland. That £327 million cut in this year's budget will mean more jobs going and even greater pressure on staff and services that are already struggling to cope. So today, Labour wants to put forward an alternative. We are asking Derek Mackay to amend his draft budget and put 1p on the basic rate of taxation to raise nearly an additional £500 million to invest this directly into local public services. Patrick Harvie I am very grateful to the member for giving away. I think that he knows that we share a lot of intent here about the need to raise revenue to invest in public services and protect them from the cuts, but why should that be focused on the basic rate? Can the Labour Party explain why low and middle income earners should be asked to pay more tax rather than those who can genuinely afford to pay? Alex Rowley I will come on to that point and I better make progress. His answer on this today and the point that Patrick Harvie makes is that he will not increase tax for low-paid workers. So let us be open and honest about what this proposal would mean for people on different salaries. If you earn below £21,000, you do not pay more. If you are on the median salary of £28,000, you are being asked to pay just over £1 more a week, an extra £65 a year. A police sergeant on £41,000 is being asked to pay an extra £203 a year. An MSP in this place on £61,000 would pay an extra £526 a year. The First Minister on a salary of £151,000 would be asked to pay an extra £1,786. To the point that Patrick Harvie makes, it would be the collective power of all those individuals paying a little bit more according to their means that would pay for the much-needed investment in education, in home care and in the future of our country. What Mr Mackay has attempted to do is hide behind a 3 per cent increase in council tax. He seems to think that he can blame councils for any increase in the unfair SNP council tax, which he himself has factored into the calculation of the funding councils are due to receive. You could not make it up, but Derek Mackay has. Remember what Nicola Sturgeon said before the SNP came to power in 2007? She said, and I quote, that the fact of the matter is that the council tax is unfair and cannot be improved by tinkering around the edges. She pledged, we will scrap the unfair council tax. Ten years later, Presiding Officer, they are not going to abolish the council tax, they are tinkering around the edges and they are telling councils to put it up by 3 per cent. Let this Parliament be clear, the council tax was unfair in 2007 and it is just as unfair today. I do believe that after 10 years of promising to get rid of the council tax and failing to do so, it is now fair to put the ownership of this unfair failed tax squarely at the door of the SNP. Derek Mackay says that he is willing to talk with other parties about alternative local taxation. We say that the starting point of any talks must now be an agreement that the SNP council tax has to go. There needs to be a timetable agreed for its abolition. Nothing else will do. And when it comes to funding local public services, in the short term, we must agree additional new monies. Nothing else will do. The draft budget would have you believe that the answer is wider public service reform. As I said at the beginning of this speech, it is government reform we need. We must reform the way we do government. But we should be clear, no amount of thinking with structures will make up for the fact that we need more investment in our local public services. Take, for example, the debate on raising educational standards. John Swinney seems oblivious to what is staring him in the face. We need more financial resources going in to support our children through teaching and learning. I'm sorry, I don't have enough time. John Swinney can mess around with the structures until doomsday. He can pour out the rhetoric about empowering headteachers and parents, but the fact remains that we need more money going into the classroom to support teaching and learning. I know that Mr Swinney visits schools. When I do not know what teachers tell him, I too have visited many schools and asked teachers what would be their priorities. Consistently, they say to me, we need more classroom assistance, we need more support in the classroom to support teaching and learning. We need a government that will listen a bit more and we can start that process by listening to what teachers have to say. The money being promised for schools in this budget is simply not enough. Today, we call on the finance secretary to reintroduce the 50p top rate of income tax for the richest 1 per cent in our society and put this money into the education of our nation's young people. Derek Mackay in his introduction to the draft budget states, and I quote, that this budget renews the Scottish Government's commitment to public service reform, guided by the recommendations of the Christie commission on the future delivery of public services. Christie, at its heart, was about tackling poverty, deprivation, inequality and shifting the priority to a more preventative approach. To make the point that I want to quote directly from the Christie report, it said, that a cycle of deprivation and low aspiration has been allowed to persist because preventative measures have not been prioritised. It went on to say that it is estimated that as much as 40 per cent of all spending on public services is accounted for by interventions that could have been avoided by prioritising a preventative approach. You cannot and you will not invest in preventative measures and bring about the transformation in the way that we do public services in government if you can continue to cut those budgets. You know that confusion at the heart of the Scottish National Party Government is summed up by its proposal to reduce access to the free bus travel that gives mobility to older people all over Scotland, while at the same time offering a tax cut to those getting on aeroplanes. You really could not make this up. Our NHS and community care is in crisis and they want to do nothing. They say that it is not as bad as England. That seems to be the extent of this Government's ambition for our country. We have record levels of older people well enough to go home from hospital but who cannot get a care package that they need to go home. Labour supports community care but we are clear community care was never care on the cheap. None of us know what the future holds and what support we or our families will need in the years to come. We, this generation, have the chance to shape the provision and future of care services. We have the chance to give young people a better future. Lack of educational achievement, lack of care services, lack of investment for the future, is that really the price that we are all willing to pay to avoid a small increase in income tax? I say to you, let us have that discussion. Let us have that debate and let us talk about the kind of society that we want, the kind of public services that we want and the kind of Scotland that we all want to live in. I move the motion. I now call Derek Mackay to speak to and move amendment 3576.4 up to eight minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On 15 December, I presented the Scottish Government's draft budget for 2017-18 to the Scottish Parliament. At the outset, I would recognise that this is the Parliament of minorities, where compromise and finding consensus is a necessity. The Government, short of a majority, is still by far the largest party in the Parliament. In looking to find agreement in the on-going talks, we should all be mindful of the mandate that is given to this Parliament by the electorate. This will be a historic budget that, for the first time, we use the powers devolved through the Scotland Act 2016, set against a backdrop of demanding political and economic conditions. As we know, the discretionary budget that the Scottish Government has available to spend on day-to-day public services will decline by around 9 per cent in real terms between 2010-11 and 2019-20. Last week's blog from the Fraser of Allander Institute set out its own views on the long-term trajectory of the Scottish Government's discretionary budget using the Fraser of Allander Institute's own definition of the Scottish Government's discretionary spend between 2010-11 and 2017-18. It confirms that it will be a real-terms cut of 3.8 per cent. It is clear evidence that, no matter which definition of the Scottish Government's discretionary budget you use, there will be a real-terms reduction. That is before we take account of the impact of the UK Chancellor's plan of £3.5 billion of further cuts to budgets in 2019-20. Murdo Fraser. I am very grateful for the finance that is giving way on this point. Will he confirm that Fraser of Allander also found that, if he took the base year 2007-08, the first year that the SNP came to power, there has been no reduction in real terms in this Government's discretionary spending over that 10-year period? Derek Mackay. Murdo Fraser just can't get away from the fact that this Government has faced a reduction in our discretionary spend. Murdo Fraser repeatedly cites the use of AME, which Fraser of Allander Institute, especially when citing Audit Scotland's figures, shows that AME is not real money that can be spent on goods and services. Murdo Fraser chooses to ignore his day job. Mr Fraser, would you please keep your voice down when you are shouting from a sedentary person? Could you please shout and whisper if you must shout? To be fair, Murdo Fraser is doing his day job of standing up for the Tory Government in Westminster while shouting at the Scottish Government for trying to protect public services. Despite the challenging financial circumstances, the Scottish Government is proposing to invest significant additional resources into public services, additional resources that are under threat should that budget not pass. Let me be clear, an additional £700 million of investment in our public services proposed by this Government for next year. Our tax proposals are fair and balanced and our budget proposes record investment for the NHS, including a £304 million uplift, a £120 million for the pupil equity scheme to tackle the attainment gap, and a £140 million investment in energy efficiency, targeting £47 million to mitigate the bedroom tax, providing around £470 million of capital funding for housing, investment in health and social care to deliver the living wage for social care staff, and expanding the small business bonus scheme to lift 100,000 properties out of rates altogether, as well as transport and digital infrastructure expansion, support for higher and further education, delivery of our commitment on police funding, and the beginning of the expansion of free early learning and childcare. Many of those commitments I know are shared by other parties in producing a budget. While delivering on our programme for government, we have listened to other parties and I will continue to listen to good ideas. It is actually for giving away. That sounded like a list of Donald Trump's alternative facts. The reality is that he is going to make £327 million worth of cuts. Can I say to the minister, when he looks at his life, when he looks at his salary and he looks at the community that he represents, does he really think that he pays enough tax when he is making the cuts that he is faced with? Jenny Mackay The problem for the Labour Party is that you are not just proposing tax rises for people like me, you are proposing to increase the basic rate on everyone who pays tax in this country. That is passing on austerity to the households of Scotland. You see, on the £327 million figure as well, it is not a like-for-like comparison, and it ignores a number of funding streams to local government. That is the facts on the local government settlement. However, the Opposition parties may be able to unite to provide a critique, but the Opposition uniting to agree credible alternative seems impossible. From left to right, there may well be a better together comeback for the budget, but there is no way that this Opposition can unite on a credible alternative. It will be down to this Government to find the necessary consensus to deliver a budget for Scotland. In that budget, local government and local services will have increased spending power of some £240 million. No wonder no local authority has rejected the offer that I have put to them. However, what the Labour Party is proposing to do is to vote with the Tories against the Scottish budget, and a budget that we are proposing to allocate hundreds of millions of pounds more for our public services, for the NHS, for education and for our local services. It is Labour that proposes to pass on austerity to the households of Scotland with its basic rate tax rise. They care not for the impact on the households of Scotland and see no connection between the basic rate of tax and their proposed rise and the general health of the Scottish economy. I accept my responsibility to find agreement in this Parliament, and I hope that those in the Opposition have a sense of responsibility. I would like to make more progress. I have held constructive discussions with Opposition parties about alternative budget proposals, and I hold those talks in good faith, and I plan for them to continue. As members in this Parliament are aware, the budget that I have introduced in December was a draft budget that marks the beginning of the process and not the end. That bill will be subject to the established three-stage parliamentary scrutiny process, allowing for two debates on the budget in this chamber, as well as the scrutiny session with the finance. At any point, the Government can propose amendments and a bruised property. The cabinet secretary has pointed out that we have not even heard from the committee and the views of this Parliament, so I will continue to undertake the talks in good faith. Members must recognise the significance of not supporting the Scottish Government draft budget. It is not just about disagreeing on the margins. It puts all our public services at threat, crucial public spending that pays for our teachers, our doctors, our nurses, our local government employees and our emergency service workers. I therefore call upon all members of this Parliament to adopt a productive approach towards the budget, engage in meaningful discussions and offer credible alternatives that reflect the mandate in this Parliament and the common ground that I am sure that we can find. We have a parliamentary process. We should respect it, not play games but work together for the people of Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to you and move amendment 3576.1. You have up to seven minutes of shouting, Mr Fraser. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start with saying that I welcome this debate from the Labour Party on the Scottish Government's budget? I agree with the sentiments of the Labour motion today, although I may have different reasons from the Labour Party for taking that particular view. On the finance secretary's last point, I look forward to meeting him tomorrow to continue our budget discussions. It may be a short meeting, but we approach it in good faith. Let me start by putting this budget into context. Despite all the moaning that we have heard from the Scottish National Party benches about Tory cuts on Westminster austerity, the finance secretary himself has accepted that the Scottish Government has some £501 million more to spend in real terms in next year's budget compared to this year's. That is a cool £0.5 billion extra spending power. That is against a background as set out in the Scottish Government's own budget documentation, helpfully confirmed last week by the Fraser of Allander Institute that its total budget, its total managed expenditure is up on real terms against the high point of 2010-11. Throughout the period of a Conservative Government at Westminster, overall resource in real terms has increased. If we take just discretionary spend, which is the Scottish Government's preferred measure, as Fraser of Allander confirmed, over the 10 years since the SNP came to power, there has been no real terms cut in discretionary spend, and those debates would be helped if the SNP benches accepted those basic points. Our primary concern about the draft budget is in relation to tax, because what it delivers is a situation whereby Scotland becomes the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. There will be a differential in terms of income tax. That is on top of higher rates for LBTT, for many house purchasers, and the continuation of the large business supplement for non-domestic rates being double that applicable elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The SNP does not want to listen to us raising those concerns. It should listen at least to the voices of the business community. In response to the draft budget, Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that creating a differential between tax bandings north and south of the border will set a dangerous president. The Institute of Directors in Scotland said that income tax plans would send the wrong message. It would have a negative impact on the Scottish economy, and I quote, a taxation disparity between Scotland and the rest of the UK is not good news for business when competing for talent. It can send the wrong message to those who we want to attract to Scotland to fill the top jobs and create others. I will go away to Mr Mason. John Mason would accept that businesses are attracted by a well-educated workforce and a healthy workforce, and that that might come about through slightly higher taxation. I remember Mr Mason election after election standing on a manifesto arguing for cuts in corporation tax in Scotland, three per cent below the rest of the UK. It seems that he and his party have now completely changed their tune. I am being at a charge of the council, Mr Mason will recognise those comments from Johnson Carmichael, who warned that higher taxes in Scotland could see businesses moving elsewhere as the cost could be significant. I might well lead them to relocating. Closer to home, the SNP should listen to some voices that are currently or previously connected with its own party. Andrew Wilson, the former economy spokesman for the SNP in this place and chair of the SNP's growth commission, has argued that the SNP needs to learn from the introduction of LBTT, which he said had lost revenue after hiking the tax charge for purchasing larger homes. At the weekend—I would like to make some progress, if I can—at the weekend, the Sunday Times Scotland reported that another SNP donor, Bill Samuel, a former chairman of Motherwell Football Club, said that he had lost faith in the SNP for doggedly pursuing income tax and stamped duty reforms that target high earners. In what is described as a withering attack on the party that he has backed for a decade, Samuel said that the SNP had given fresh meaning to mediocrity and that, and I quote, the great hopes of a nation will now fatally flounder in the mud of moaning and complaint. He added that LBTT reforms said in resounding tones that Scotland is closed for business. That is on the back of another former SNP donor, an enthusiastic supporter of Yes Scotland, Peter Devink, the independent councillor from Midlothian. Well, there weren't laughing, Presiding Officer, when he was giving them all that money in support of the Yes Scotland campaign. This last weekend, in language so unparlamentary and so uncomplimentary, even I could not use it in this chamber. What he said about the finance secretary announced that his support for the SNP was at an end. The SNP might have a point if it were raising more money to spend on vital public services and could demonstrate that that was the case. However, the reality is that hundreds of thousands of householders across Scotland will see their council tax bills hiked in April, some by £500 or more at the same time as they are seeing local services being slashed. In my own area, the SNP-run Perthincan Ross Council is currently considering a range of cuts to front-line services, including scrapping some 24 maths and English teaching posts, reducing the opening hours of community campuses, scrapping the community warden scheme, increasing the cost of school meals from £2.10 a day to £2.70, and cutting 94 care home places. There will be many, many other examples from across the country of similar cuts being proposed by local authorities at the same time as taxes are going up. Thank you, Murdo Fraser, for taking the intervention. Knowing that the Tories position though is to reduce taxes further, where do you propose to make cuts to be able to pay for your tax cuts? Murdo Fraser has asked me that question, because what the Government should be doing is growing the economy and growing the tax revenue. It is precisely the point made by Liz Cameron from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce who said that growing our economy rather than increasing taxes will provide the most sustainable route towards boosting tax revenues and thus public sector spending. Our own calculations have shown that if Scotland were to match the UK average for higher and additional rate taxpayers rather than lagging behind, that would generate an additional £600 million a year for vital public services and without a single tax rate being raised. However, we will not get there for so long as we send out a message that Scotland is the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. With Labour and ourselves that seem set to oppose the Scottish Government, it only arranged to be seen which of the two remaining suitors at the court of Queen Nicola are likely to win her favour. Will it be Patsy Harvey, the man who is always there to do the SNP's bidding? Or will it be Willing Willie, risking sacrificing the electoral prospects of Liberal Democrat councillors up and down the land in order to gain a few moments of glory as the saviour of the SNP budget? We will know soon enough, Presiding Officer. For our part, we are clear that this is not a budget that we can currently support, and I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. I now call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move amendment 3576.2 up to seven minutes, please, Mr Harvie. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will do my best, my level best, to resist returning the rather pathetic name calling that we just heard. I welcome the fact that we have a debate coming along about this. I take reasonably the comments from Bruce Crawford earlier that some might see this as cutting across the finance committee's process, but we have, to be fair, had a relatively short and constrained scrutiny process in relation to the budget. If that ends up being a stage zero debate, then I hope that it won't do any harm at the very least. As for the basic motion that the Labour Party has proposed, if that is what we end up voting on at the end of the day, I would vote in favour of it. The basic proposition that the draft budget requires change in order to achieve not just what the Labour Party has set out but what several of us have set out across the chamber, that there needs to be investment in public services to protect those who, even Murdo Fraser, has cited are under threat of cuts in the coming months. That is a position that I support. I have been a little disappointed by the apparent ruling out of any constructive ideas coming forward over recent weeks and months. I think that in a period of minority government, all opposition parties have a responsibility not just to Parliament and to the country as a whole, but a responsibility to our own voters to try and maximise the impact of opposition against a minority Government. I think that all of us should have been trying to do that in the most constructive way possible. In the interest of being constructive and recognising the process, the cabinet secretary ought not to be threatening local government with taking more money off them if they do not settle now. Surely, that should be part of the process of respect in his budget, too. I would agree with that. I will come on to local government in a moment. The draft budget was published, and the green response to it includes a wide range of concerns, to be fair. It is unreasonable to be surprised that a small political party that gained six seats in the election this year on a manifesto of bold action to invest in the priorities for Scotland might be critical of what the largest party and the party in government is doing. We called for an anti-poverty budget, and to us that means being open to radical ideas like a top-up on child benefit, being bolder on living wage plus going beyond the living wage for vitally important and historically undervalued work like care work. A step change that has been long overdue on energy efficiency, and it does seem to me that if what is being proposed for energy efficiency covers both residential and non-residential properties, as it seems to at the moment, it is not a significant increase, possibly only a real-terms freeze, as well as investment in GP funding and a commitment to 70 per cent of the capital spend being on low-carbon infrastructure such as active travel, which we are very far from reaching at the moment. We also set out during the election campaign clear ways of achieving that investment and a bold approach to income tax powers, which are now finally within the remit of this Parliament. Not just an obsession with the additional rate, the very top rate, which we think is justified to be increased, not just 50 per cent in the pound but beyond, but it is a relatively small proportion of our population who pay that, so we need to be bolder still. Not just obsessed as well about the basic rate, either. I find it frustrating that there is so little attention paid to the higher rate, the rate that we as high earners, as MSPs, pay a proportion of our income at that rate. It is very clear that, either on the rate or on the thresholds, there is a wide range of ways in which the Scottish Government could raise the revenue that is necessary to protect investment in our public services and do it in a way that is fair, that does not increase the income tax that is to be paid by low and average earners. Historically, we have seen an extraordinary concentration of wealth amongst fewer and fewer people in our society, in many western countries. I do not just mean in this country, but if we want to begin to reverse that trend, to reverse that tendency, we need to begin to take action. We have presented the Scottish Government with options, not just on income tax rates but thresholds as well, to give them the opportunity to show that that is possible. The impact on services and, in particular, on local government services is going to be profound. I acknowledge that there is a range of different interpretations about what is in the Scottish budget, even back in the old days of the Labour-Lev Dem coalition. I do not take everything back ten years, but ever since devolution began, there has been a debate between Government and Opposition about how transparent the budget is. There is always a range of different interpretations about what the figures mean. However, it seems to me beyond doubt, and probably beyond debate, that there will be severe impacts on services that our colleagues in local government are going to have to deliver. They are already having to set their budgets or draft their budgets on the basis of cuts that they expect to come to their unring-fenced resource allocation, so we have to find ways of reversing that, and I think that we can. It comes at a time when the context is one not just of centralised control, but even of rape-capping—rape-capping without legislation to justify it on the council tax, and the contradiction that the Scottish Government is willing to place an expectation on councils to use the most unfair tax available to us—the council tax—while refusing to use a more progressive tax power. I want to just touch briefly before I finish on the other party's positions, that I find that the logic of the Conservative amendment to be very odd indeed. It suggests that there is a principle reason why people or businesses in Scotland should not be taxed any higher than any other part of the UK. If that is a principled position, then there is an equally powerful equivalent principle that people in other parts should not be taxed higher than in Scotland either. They are effectively arguing against the devolution of taxation powers on principle, and I have to reject that. As for the Liberal Democrat proposition, it includes a range of spending ideas that I think most of us would welcome. I do not think that any of us would die in the deck to say that that is a terrible idea for what we might spend money on, but, like the Labour Party, I find it astonishing and puzzling that the proposition for funding that should be focused on the basic rate so that the revenue would come from low and middle earners when we do not have to do that. There remain, Deputy Presiding Officer, big differences between the green position and the SNP, but we are open to discussion. We will take that seriously and constructively, but I want to reinforce to the SNP that I think that many of their own supporters expect them and want them to do the right thing and move us in the direction of progressive taxation to fund public services that we all rely on. I now call on Willie Rennie to speak to and move amendment 3576.3. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name just to gently return the favour to Murdo Fraser or Machete Murdo, promising to cut taxes for higher earners while cutting public services for everyone else. I'm afraid that was Mike Rumble's suggestion, but it's true to form because the Conservatives are not squaring the circle, they are not explaining how they are going to raise the extra money that they are proposing to cut from taxes. Today's debate actually is a helpful precursor to the stage 1 debate next week. From today's remarks so far, it's pretty clear that there is no majority of members in this Parliament for this budget. My party understands that a budget will need to be agreed between parties if it is to be passed. We have been working hard to do exactly that. We have been putting forward the credible alternative that the finance secretary has been suggesting. We have been measured, we have been reasonable, we have been open with our budget requests. We understand that we cannot dictate the whole of the budget. All we are asking for is to influence a fraction of it. In view of the consistently poor economic and education data that has been published in recent weeks since the draft budget, I think that we are right to put the economy first through the measures that we have been proposing. With the challenge of Brexit and the threat to our economy, I think that the case is even stronger now too. Our £400 million worth of measures is just over 1 per cent of the total Scottish Government budget. It's not an unreasonable request. We are not demanding the entirety of our manifesto in this first budget either. We have set out the priorities that we believe are urgent. The whole Parliament should unite around them, as Patrick Harvie has just said. It's very difficult to disagree with the proposals, but it's for the good of the long-term economy is what we believe the argument should be. I have met the finance secretary formally on three occasions and I'm planning to meet him again this week. We have had numerous informal conversations as well. Let me tell you, because I'm keen to be open, what we have discussed. Our education system is under strain. It needs investment for colleges and schools to train our workforce to face the challenges of Brexit and an ever-more competitive global market. We want extra money into schools. The pupil premium that we pioneered in England has helped to close the attainment gap there. Current Scottish plans do not match that, and I believe that they should. We want to invest in colleges to restore the part-time courses that help women and older people to retrain. Audit Scotland highlighted the damage done to those groups. We have estimated that £160 million is required to help to get Scottish education back up to the best in the world after it slipped in recent years. I'll make a bit more progress if that's okay. Everyone in this Parliament tells me that mental health services are a priority for everyone. Will this budget be a chance to show it? We have set out a package of measures from tier 1 and 2 counselling through to emergency support with the police and accident emergency units. We would need to take the total mental health budget up to £1.2 billion to pay for that. We all know that Police Scotland has been put through the mill. The centralisation programme has not worked, despite all its assurances of the previous First Minister and the previous Cabinet Secretary that it would deliver savings. Police Scotland needs an extra £20 million over and above the SNP plans. We want a better deal for ferry and air transport links to the Northern Isles. I have highlighted to the Scottish Government where their policies have left the gap in funding for alcohol and drug partnerships. Patrick Harvie? I'm grateful. Can I restate the question that I put in my speech? I don't think any of us would look unkindly at this list of goodies, but at the moment that's all it is. How does Willie Rennie propose to fund it by cutting other services or by raising taxation, and what is his tax proposition that would protect low and middle-income earners? I have already set out in considerable detail during the election that, we promise, is a modest increase in income tax for a big return. Because we managed to raise the tax thresholds at Westminster, it protects those on low and middle incomes more, and that allows us to be able to increase a modest one penny. We have to get the balance right between increases in taxation and investment in public services. We believe that we have got that balance right, and we believe that it is the right way to go to make that modest increase. I think that Danny Mackay has got a problem with part of his rhetoric. He started off by setting out that there has been a 9 per cent reduction in the Scottish Government budget in the last few years. Then he goes on to say that there is a £3.5 billion reduction coming until 1920. Yet he claims councils, colleges, schools, the NHS, social services—almost every part of the public sector will not get a better deal than what he is offering—that he will get a big, generous response. He cannot have it both ways. That is why I believe that what we need to do is to invest in public service with a modest increase in taxation. Everybody in this Parliament has got a responsibility. There is no majority as it currently stands. We have set out what our priorities should be, but if anybody in this Parliament thinks that it is just a matter of time before the Liberal Democrats agree with the SNP for a budget, then they are mistaken. Everybody has got a responsibility to try and reach an agreement. If they do not live up to that responsibility, and if there is an election that follows the failure to reach an agreement, those who have not lifted their shovels and made an attempt to reach an agreement on this budget will bear the responsibility of having an election before us. People in this country do not want an election, and people need to wake up and realise that we are heading down that path. That is my warning to everybody in this chamber today that they have a responsibility to work with the finance secretary and to reach an agreement. We have done that so far, and it is now up to others in this Parliament to do exactly the same. We now move to the open speeches. I tell you that the debate is oversubscribed in terms of what time we have left. Unless members are well under the five minutes in their speeches, later speeches will have to be cut quite dramatically. I call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Myers Briggs. This is a Labour Party debate, but I want to start by saying something about the Tories' and taxation as detailed in their amendment. The Tories claim to be the party of low taxation, but that is deeply misleading. If it was up to the Tories, Scottish students would be paying millions of pounds more in tuition fees than they do in England—a tax on education. If it was up to the Tories, sick people in Scotland would be paying for their prescriptions, including some with long-term conditions and a tax on ill health. If it was up to the Tories, vulnerable Scots would be paying the hated bedroom tax and a tax on poverty and, in many cases, disability. All those Tory taxes are levied on people in England, but in Scotland we chose not to impose them. They are the cruelest taxes of all, and they hit them just about managing or jams that Theresa May and her Tory team in this chamber claim to care about. It is just about managing those who suffer from the sickness tax. People earning less than £16,000 a year in England pay £8.40 per prescription item. The SNP found £50 million to mitigate it through discretionary housing payments. Vulnerable families in Scotland do not pay the bedroom tax. There are some Tory taxes that we cannot avoid in Scotland because we do not have the power to adjust them, such as value-added tax, which under the Tories hit a record 20 per cent. That is one of the most regressive taxes of all. It means that for every £5 spent, the individual pays £1, regardless of income. The Office of National Statistics have calculated that the poorest fifth of UK households lose nearly 10 per cent of their disposable income in that compared with 5 per cent for the richest households. That is why I contend that the Tories are not the party of low tax for most people, they are the party of the low tax for the very rich. Turning to the Labour motion, the Scottish Government will be open to amendments to the budget, as the cabinet secretary has made clear, but in draft form the budget has much to commend it. Given, as Derek Mackay said, Scotland's discretionary budget will decline significantly in real terms between 2010 and 2020. The budget protects low-income households from tax hikes, while supporting jobs, delivering increased investment in education, 120 million direct to schools and there is record investment in our health service, the resource consequentials for health. Neil Findlay. We greatly attacked the Conservative Party. What if she could list all the progressive measures taken by the Scottish Government that takes money from people who are wealthiest and gives it to people who are at the bottom end of the scale? John McAlpine. I think that I have just listed many of the progressive policies of the SNP Government in mitigating the bedroom tax and no tuition fees and abolishing prescription charges with the Labour Party opposed. I am also going to go on to, in this particular budget, the resources for health, which is, as I said, £304 million being passed on, taking spending to a record £12.7 billion on health. I would say that that is what people in Scotland voted for last May. They rejected Neil Findlay's party and voted for that manifesto with record above inflation increases in health. There is a great deal of dishonesty, perhaps a desperate ploy in advance of the council elections this year, when Labour consistently ignored the overall increase in funding for local services and ignored things like the attainment funding for schools and health and social care integration funding. The latter has risen another £107 million this year in addition to the £250 million last year. Those are local services, even if they do not fall into the budget lines of local government. Not all local services are delivered by councils. Some are delivered by integrated joint boards, the formation of which Labour supported. Some are delivered directly by schools who know what is best for the children that they teach. You have half a minute left. I just want to finish by returning to the Tories. They have no credibility, as others have said. Today and every day, the Tories stand up and demand lower taxes for the better off, while at the same time making numerous spending demands. Murdo Fraser has said that he expected his meeting to be the cabinet secretary to be very short indeed. I am not surprised because he is absolutely nothing constructive to say. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am pleased to speak in today's debate. The impact of the Scottish Government's draft budget on local authority budgets across the country has understandably already been a significant theme in today's debate. As Joan McAlpine just mentioned through her coughing, the council elections are an important part of this debate. As we approach those council elections, I think that it is especially important that my constituents across Edinburgh City remember what this SNP Government tried to do with their hard-earned money through the proposed central education attainment fund. Until a matter of just a few short weeks ago, SNP ministers were determined to take millions of pounds of council tax raised here in Edinburgh away from the city and spend it in other parts of Scotland. Indeed, that is very quickly. Does the member welcome the news in this budget that £120 million of the Government's money will be going to close the attainment gap, and would he welcome that? Miles Briggs. We are still to find out the figures of where that money is actually to go between councils. So until we know where that money is going to be spread out, we won't be clear. But until this, and indeed this deeply flawed policy beforehand, was going to cost Edinburgh £5.9 million in this financial year, and over the next five years £38 million would have been taken away from the city. I am sorry to say that Edinburgh's SNP city councillors, MPs and MSPs were totally mute on this issue at that very time, and residents across the city faced with seeing millions of pounds of their own money hived off to other councils. A policy that was not only centralising anti-localist and totally at odds with the Scottish Government's supposed community empowerment—no, I am very short of time—was of course only thanks to the Scottish Conservative campaign against those proposals in Edinburgh and other council areas that were going to be hit and see money diverted away from their school spending, that the policy was rethought last year. I don't have time—I only have two minutes, as you know it's over. Subscribe to this debate. Despite the U-turn from the finance secretary on the way that the money for this fund was to be allocated and raised, Edinburgh City Council taxpayers still face losing out more than any other area on council tax banding, multiplier changes themselves. That means that council tax rises for over 37 per cent of city households who live in band E to H homes, compared to a national average of just 26 per cent of households across Scotland. Many of those council taxpayers are not particularly wealthy, especially in bands E and F, but find themselves in those bands due to the city's comparatively high property values. They will be hit hard even before the Labour-SNP coalition, which runs Edinburgh City Council, considers putting the council tax up by an additional 3 per cent on top of that. One issue that I would like to raise today, which I hope will be considered in future budgets, is the capital city supplement, which Edinburgh receives in recognition of its capital city status and the extra burden it places on the council and council services. I pay tribute to the determined and successful work undertaken by my friend, the late Margo MacDonald, supported by city MSPs of all parties in securing the supplement back in 2007. We need to consider in future budgets whether the supplement is significant and sufficient, given our capital city's international status and draw, the increasing number of official functions that it has to support, extra policing responsibilities and the need to ensure that our infrastructure can compete with other capital cities. It is a sad economic reality that, after 10 years of the SNP Scottish Government, the only part of the Scottish economy that is currently growing is Edinburgh and the south-east region. It is therefore vital that we see investment needed to sustain and this region, and I believe that priority is given to transport projects to support jobs and growth in this region and to take into account the additional housing that we will be seeing across Edinburgh and the Lothians. The Edinburgh city pie pass has already reached capacity levels and we need to see forward thinking and forward planning to meet future needs across this region. For example, the A720 being made a smart motorway, allowing hard shoulders to be used for running traffic at peak times to address the ever-growing congestion. I would like to welcome the debate around this and hope that MSPs across the city would back me on this. Before concluding, Presiding Officer, I wish to agree with my colleague Murdo Fraser about the dangers to the Scottish economy if the SNP Government's high-tax instincts see tax rates increased further. Ministers need to listen to businesses and job creators across the city, as well as hard-pressed Edinburgh city council taxpayers. If we are to attract more companies to invest and the high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs who are key to the future economic success and growth of Scotland, we cannot be less competitive on tax and less attractive than other nations in our United Kingdom. I support the amendment in my colleague Murdo Fraser's name. Can I just remind members how tight we are and how your colleagues may well be disadvantaged unless people cut down their speaking time? Tom Arthur to be followed by James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me say at the outset that I recognise the thought and content of Mr Rowley's remarks. Unfortunately, it is a shame that Labour did not decide to put this in its motion and have the confidence to put it to a vote. The motion put forward by Labour is a motion that in its paucity and vacuity is only commensurate with the Labour Party's purell approach to politics. Given the opportunity to put forward and put to a vote an alternative prospectus, Labour has instead chosen to sacrifice what is left of its credibility with a craven motion, which is more about its pursuit of its fanatical obsession with denigrating the Scottish Government. After Labour's decade of denial at a cost of 40 MPs, 25 points in the polls and 26 seats in the chamber, Labour has now successfully distilled its loving of the SNP into the iconic motion. I applaud Labour on its new-found efficiency of messaging. I only regret that its colleagues and local governments seem to be anything but efficient in their handling of public services and public finances. Last year, Labour-controlled Renfisher Council downgraded recycling centres across the authority, including in Johnston and Linwood in my constituency of Renfisher South. Despite huge local opposition, Labour pressed ahead only to the versa decision three months later at over a cost of £280,000, it does not like it. If Fiasco and Renfisher were an isolated incident, it would be bad enough, but it is sadly part of a bigger picture. £100,000 wasted in the aborted revamp of George Square, up to £100 million in North Lanarkshire as a result of Labour's mishandling of eco-pay, and let us not forget Labour's multi-billion-pound toxic PFI legacy. It is this kind of reckless approach and a needless waste of taxpayers' money that typifies Labour's approach to public spending. In the earth's proposals for raising revenue, Labour's incompetence is only a match for their incoherence. Out of respect for colleagues, what an opportunity to speak, I won't be taking interventions. After years of calling for the council tax freeze to be lifted, South Lanarkshire Labour has indicated that it will continue to freeze because, in their words, residents are struggling with their budgets. While Labour members in this chamber demand a income tax, it is increased for the lowest-paid in society. While in those same Labour benches in this chamber they call for an increase in the additional rate, even if it leads to less money for public services, their shadow chancellor has said that Labour will support Tory plans for an inflacing, bursting tax cut for those in the upper-rate. Something John McDonnell admits is a tax giveaway for the wealthiest in society. This is a shambolic approach to public policy. It is no wonder that people do not take the Labour Party seriously on public services and finances. It is clear from their record of incompetence in local government that the Labour Party could not run a menage—never mind a Government. I ask for the Tories. Their amendment is but their latest attempt to undermine the principle of differentiation that underpins a devolution settlement. After their unconstrained ecstasy at yesterday's confirmation of the legal irrelevance of the soul convention, which they legislated for, they now demand that we do not use the tax powers that they themselves argued that we should be devolved. Coupled with their intransigence to a differential solution for Scotland and Brexit, it is clear what the Tories mean by strong opposition. It is what it has always meant to them—strong opposition to devolution and strong opposition to the will of the Scottish people. The specifics of the amendment are not content with using parliamentary time to ask self-serving questions, so several of their members swan off to what works second and third jobs. However, the Tories now want to give high-earners like themselves a tax cut. That could be regarded as showing a comedic level of hootsfire, were it not for the tens of thousands of people who have suffered as a consequence of their parties' draconian and inhumane welfare reforms? To demand a tax cut for the welfare system society while implementing policies that are driving our most vulnerable into debt and reliance on food banks show that the Tories, the party of the rape clause, are as heartless, callous and cynical as ever. To add into its insult, the Tories claim to be offering lower taxes that are utterly disingenuous. Their position is rather than HMRC. They would have pharmacists implement their prescription sickness charge and students pay their £9,000 a year education tax. While the Tories and Labour have used this debate and will continue to use it in their motions to engage in the politics of the playground, I do want to close by acknowledging the amendments brought forward by both the Greens and Liberal Democrats who have recognised that this is a Parliament of minorities who are sticking to put their views forward. You know that time is tight, no matter how vigorous you feel on your feet, everybody gets the same whack. James Kelly followed by Kate Forbes, please. I think that it is absolutely correct that we are having this debate this afternoon, because it allows the parties to set out their positions on the budget, and it also allows Mr McKay to perhaps hear an alternative prospectus. Up until now, he has been very resistant to alternative ideas throughout the budget process. The budget is one of the biggest decisions that the Parliament makes in any year, and it gives Mr McKay the chance to hear representatives from constituencies in regions throughout Scotland as to what is really happening as opposed to just purely listening to his civil servants. What has happened where the budget is, and Mr McKay announced it in December, began to unravel in terms of the spin of that day against the reality. I want to concentrate on three particular tests of the budget, outcomes, local councils and tax. If you look at some of the outcomes that the Scottish Government wants to see on the Scottish Performance website, then clearly in terms of some of the budget lines, the budget falls down. The Government tells us that it is in favour and that its budget is set out to promote economic growth, but at the same time we have seen a 40 per cent cut in enterprise budgets since 2009. What does that do for economic growth? The Government tells us not at this time, the Government tells us that they are all about fairness and widening access in education, but we have seen a 25 per cent cut in the educational maintenance allowance. We heard Mr Mason earlier speak about the importance of education. What does that do to gain access? I just think that it is important that there is no scaremongering when it is discussing the budget. If you take an example of the education maintenance allowance, that does not exist south of the border, but it continues to exist in Scotland and it will continue to be demand. I make the point because the UK Government has scrapped it and it continues in Scotland at a demand-led level, so it will continue to be delivered in Scotland. I do not think that it is fair and accurate to those receiving that to be told that they will no longer be receiving it. I am sorry, I have to make interventions crisp as well. Thank you, Ms Kelly. Seeing all those words for Derek Mackay, I did not hear anything that is saying that there is not a cut of 25 per cent in the educational maintenance allowance budget. Students up and down this country will have access restricted because of that decision. Again, if you look at the issue of health and sport, the Government is always quite rarely trumping up Scotland's sport and successes, but they have cut the budget for sport. What does that do for extending access to working-class communities and community sport? That budget, despite all the hype, is not delivering on the outcomes that the Government is looking for. One of the most retrograde parts of it is the way that councils have been hammered. £327 million of cuts have been passed on to local government. Even here, if you look at some of the SNP responses from Dundee Council criticising aspects of the settlement, the difference for councillors and council leaders up and down the country is that they are close to their communities. They see the impact of those cuts, unlike Mr Mackay, who clearly needs to get out more. I think that the other issue is clearly that the SNP is very timid on tax. Why is it that people on MSP salaries and above are not being asked to make a contribution to try and mitigate the effects of those cuts? It is a fact of life that, if Mr Mackay discovered a backbone and decided to use some progressive taxation, we would not see the jobs lost that are going to happen in local government. We would not see the play schemes cut. We would not see the libraries proposed for closure. In summing up, the budget is not about adding up the numbers on a spreadsheet. It is about the impact on people and the impact on communities. The facts of the matter are at this minute in time that the budget is not fit for purpose. It lets people and communities down and it is time to think again, Mr Mackay. I am not sure that there is anything left to say after my colleague Tom Arthur's spirited speech, but when I read Labour's motion on Monday night, it took me straight back to primary school, which may be more recent for me than for most MSPs, Rosgreer, accepting. Labour's motion is just like a petulant child standing there, arms crossed, faced in a skill, just saying no. No analysis, no judgment and no substance, just a big fat no. Scotland needs a budget. There needs to be scrutiny, discussions with other parties and amendments, as mentioned in the Government's motion. To be fair to the Lib Dems and the Greens, at least their amendments had some substance. Let me be clear that that big fat no in Labour's motion would be awful news for the Highlands. It would mean saying no to over £100 million in digital infrastructure and delivering superfast broadband to 100 per cent of homes and businesses. It would mean saying no to over £470 million of direct capital investment to deliver 50,000 affordable homes. It would mean saying no to £47 million to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax. It would mean saying no to the continued dualling of the A9 and improving the A82, because that is what is in our draft budget. However, the Tory's amendment is even more predictable than Labour's motion. The Tory spends so much time talking about extra tax with such misery that they scare away investment on empty rhetoric alone. 99 per cent of taxpayers in Scotland will not pay a penny more under the tax proposals in the draft budget, and only those earning over £122,900 in Scotland will pay more to the tune of £14 per year. The marginal difference between Scotland and England was caused by the Westminster Tories taking the regressive decision to cut the thresholds, giving higher-rate payers a tax break. That difference means that someone in the higher-rate threshold in Scotland will pay up to £314 more in 1718 than in the rest of the UK. However, what the Tories blatantly and intentionally ignore is that if you are a taxpayer in Scotland in every threshold, in any threshold, you get more for your money and a much better deal than anywhere else in the UK. I, too, lament the difference in policy between Scotland and England. Not for the sake of the rich, but for the sake of the 10 per cent poorest households, whom the Resolution Foundation estimates will lose £400 a year by 2020-21 under Tory policies, while the richest 10 per cent are gaining £200 a year. I call on both sides of the chamber to park the premature stunts—yes, I will. Mr Findlay. I want to tell me which households suffer most from cuts to local government, cuts to social care, cuts to the NHS, cuts to all our public services. Is it people at the top of the tree or is it people at the bottom? I will happily answer that. I would agree that, if there were cuts, it would be the poorest that would pay. However, in this budget, there is an additional £120 million to close the attainment gap. There is an additional £111 million to councils as a result of changes to the council tax bans. There is an additional £250 million for social care. There is an additional £107 million to deliver the living wage for social care workers. That is a budget that delivers for the poorest in society. On that point, I think that I will close. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I declare an interest as a councillor in South Lanarkshire. I am someone who is once again going to have to grapple with a reduced settlement from the SNP and decide what to cut. Can I first of all thank Labour for bringing this debate? Like our own last week on the dismantling of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, this is another example of opposition parties focusing on what matters. Not for us the blame game of the SNP, no. The grievance and grudge, the moaning minis of the SNP, would have you believe that nothing is their fault. It's always someone else's. Well, after 10 years of government, they can't get away with it anymore and people are seeing through it. The funding, sorry, underfunding of Scotland's public services by the SNP is a scandal and it's a choice they've made against the backdrop of rising money from the UK government. Health is in crisis because the SNP has made it so. No. Local government is on its knees because the SNP has put it there. SNP austerity is with us. It's very real and it hurts and those like Tom Arthur who shout and bawl on those benches should be ashamed. Derek Mackay has made a conscious choice to chop council budgets. No, I'm not giving way. There's not much time. By £327 million next year, but only if Parliament lets him. We won't be voting for Derek Mackay's slash and burn budget. We'll be voting with hard-pressed taxpayers and for public services. Today, all parties have the chance to show us where they stand. We've been clear that making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK is not something we can support. Labour has said for different reasons that they won't back Mr Mackay. So what of the Greens and the Lib Dems will willy-renny jump into bed with Derek Mackay? We're not sure, but Mike Rumbles said yesterday that he was pretty sure the budget will not pass next week. Will the Greens twist Mr Mackay's arm up his back? Could either party, while professing to back localism, do a deal with a party that's on a mission to destroy local government? How will they be able to look voters in the eyes in May? The money given to our local authorities by this SNP government is declining. There's no use shouting. Derek Mackay's smoke and mirrors draft budget. I thank the grace's way that the member has taken the intervention. If you have so many spending proposals to make in your proposals that you just put forward, can you please tell us for the sake of everybody, particularly the people of Scotland, where is that money coming from from the Tory plans, given that you intend to cut taxes? Graham Simpson. Well, Mr Crawford, perhaps Mr Mackay would look at the extra half billion pounds in real terms that he's getting in his budget. He could start there. I'm afraid the money given to councils is declining and Mr Mackay's smoke and mirrors draft budget tries in vain to hide that, but expert after expert have blown away the fog of figures have concluded the same. The Scottish Government has more money at its disposal than ever before. Since the SNP came to power in 2007, there's been no real terms cut in its spending power. None. The Fraser Valander Institute confirmed that last week, as Murdo Mackay said—not Murdo Mackay, Murdo Fraser—jobs are at risk if Derek Mackay gets his way. Let's look at the reality. My own council expects to have to make around £20 million of cuts next year. That means a loss of 282 full-time equivalent jobs. That's the livelihood of more than 300 people at risk. Those things matter. The SNP intend to make Scotland the highest-tax part of the UK, while local services are slashed. That's not something we'll support, we'll others. Thank you very much. I'll call Jackie Baillie to follow by John Mason. Presiding Officer, they say that persistence is a virtue and I will be persistent but also brief. There can be a few more important things in my mind than debating the budget. It's an opportunity to reflect on our priorities as a country, to lay the foundations of a growing economy and an inclusive society. We do so with more power than we have ever had before, new powers that come with new responsibilities. Gone are the days when we simply spent what someone else gave us, now we are responsible for raising a significant proportion of our own revenue. One would hope that that would bring a new maturity to our politics, but I'm not convinced of that based on the performance of some this afternoon. But let's start with the understanding that if the tax-based contracts there are real consequences. Fewer people paying tax, less of a tax yield will mean less money for our public services. It's therefore self-evident that growing the economy has to be a key priority. The more people in work, the more taxes get paid. A quick glance at the Scottish Government's record on the economy, and I tell you that we should all be very nervous for the future, because across virtually every measure we are being outperformed by the UK. In Scotland, unemployment is increasing, employment is decreasing, economic inactivity is rising, work is precarious and growth has all but stagnated. No matter what selective statistics the Government quote, the truth is that we are in trouble. If you need any more confirmation of that, just look at business confidence, which is plummeting. I would have much more respect for the Scottish Government if they weren't in such denial. Recognising that there is a problem is the first step to taking the pragmatic action that is required to turn the tide around and grow our economy. Growing the economy is surely an ambition that unites us all round the chamber and should feature in the budget. I well remember Nicola Sturgeon going to London in advance of the general election, lecturing all the parties on being anti-austerity. It seems that she and the SNP are now suffering from collective amnesia, but here is the incredible thing. She was prepared to do that with fewer powers over finance than she has now. What I really do not understand is why, with all that power, the SNP Government is content to simply be a conveyor belt for Tory cuts. Devolution was about giving us the opportunity to make different choices, yet here is the party of independence not using the powers that they have to protect Scotland's interests. What is the point of arguing for more powers if you do not even use the ones that you have now? Instead, what we get with the SNP is austerity on steroids. £327 million of cuts to local services is on top of the cuts last year of £300 million, a direct attack on education, an attack on opportunity and attack on the future. Economists tell us that one of the greatest investments that we can make in growing our economy is to invest in human capital, the knowledge and skills of our young people. Businesses continue to report skill shortages, yet we cut the very budgets that are designed to make a difference. That takes me to the enterprise agencies. At a time when the importance of growing the economy in the face of Brexit is clear, what does the SNP do? It cuts the budget of the very agencies that are responsible for supporting business growth sit-down, a cut in real terms of a staggering 48 per cent for Scottish Enterprise, 18 per cent for the Highlands and Islands Enterprise since 2009-10, a 48 per cent cut to your main economic development agency. Does the SNP honestly think that there is going to be no impact at all? It is so completely wrongheaded that it is frankly breathtaking. Economics 101. If you want a bigger tax base, you need to grow the economy. You need more people in work. What do the SNP not get about that? In contrast, Labour's proposal is to use the powers of this Parliament to invest in our young people and to invest in growing the economy. The SNP promised, Presiding Officer, to protect Scotland's interests from austerity. It is increasingly clear that the hallmark of the SNP is to promise one thing but to do exactly the opposite. That is not just disappointing. The SNP stands charged with gross negligence of the Scottish economy, and the evidence is for there for all to see in their budget. Thank you very much, Miss Bailey, and you were in time. I call John Mason. I call by Jeremy Balfour, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As has been explained and as was intended for this Parliament when it was set up again in 1999, no one party has an overall majority. Therefore, no one party can get entirely its own way, and every party has to compromise a bit. I have to say that I think that that is a healthy state of affairs. There are many options for improving the budget, and that has happened every year, even when the SNP had an overall majority. I am sure that the cabinet secretary has a little bit of money that he has kept aside, which he can use for priorities for other parties. It probably is worth reminding ourselves of some of the things that are included in the debate. Oh, sorry, I couldn't see you. It's distracted here by the comments. I'm grateful to the member for giving way. Does he not acknowledge that if he regards negotiation on this matter as a question of keeping a little pot of money aside, then it absolutely fails to open up the possibility that we improve tax policy in Scotland and achieve a fairer, more redistributive economy in the opportunity that faces Derek Mackay at the moment? Mr Mason. Yes, I basically do agree with that, and he might be intervened on me a little bit too soon, as I will develop my argument as we go along. The point is that there are two points. There is one within our present revenue that we are raising, and the other is to raise more revenue. Let's remember some of the things that are in the SNP budget. A record £12.7 billion pounds for the health budget, £120 million targeted at closing the education attainment gap, still no fees for university students, heading towards 30,000 new modern apprenticeships each year, on target for 50,000 affordable homes by 2021, completing the fourth replacement crossing, completing the M8M73, M74 motorway improvement, completing the rail electrification between Glasgow and Edinburgh, the list could go on. On the taxation side, let's not forget that many small businesses are not paying business rates at all. Our land and building transaction tax is more principles-based and more progressive than stamp duty was, and many small businesses, as I said, are not paying business rates at all. Our income tax is diverging from the UK and that in a fairer direction. Clearly, there is a challenge as to whether or not we can raise more tax and therefore free up more revenue for other forms of expenditure. The Conservatives keep repeating their mantra that they do not want Scotland to be taxed more than the rest of the UK. They seem scared to being different from their neighbours. However, if we want the best health service in the UK, the best education in the UK, the best social rented housing in the UK, what is so wrong with paying more tax than the rest of the UK? A well-educated, well-housed and a healthy workforce will be more important factors in attracting businesses to Scotland than whether the income tax rate is a few pence different. My own feeling would be that there could be room to raise a bit of tax, however, there are certain parameters that we should take heed of. At the previous finance committee of which I was a member, there was evidence that a 1p or 2p difference between Scotland and England would probably not lead to many people moving residents, but a 5p difference, as I think Labour is proposing at the top end, is much more of a risk and the tax take could be seriously damaged. We should also oppose tax rises for those on the lowest incomes. They already face a marginal rate of 20 per cent tax and 12 per cent national insurance, meaning 32 per cent for those on an income of £11,000, and that certainly was the previous Labour plan. I am not entirely clear if that is still the Labour plan to increase people on £11,000. When it comes to expenditure, it is easy to have a wish list, but we still have to have a balanced budget, so more expenditure in one area either means increased taxation or it means less expenditure on something else. I am sorry, I think that I have taken intervention already. You are in your last minute. When we look at the Opposition's motions and amendments, Labour does not really say anything at all, apart from the fact that the draft budget is acceptable. I assume that that is to get the Tories on board, but it might have been more honest if they had said what they believed. The most honest, I think, is probably the Greens, who go straight in with the commitment to raise tax. The Conservatives appear to be honest and want to cut tax, but the hypocrisy comes when they all want to raise expenditure, like Brian Whittle in sport and Graham Simpson in local government. Sadly, the Lib Dems are the most predictable, with a wish list of some five areas. I think that they have now costed us at £400 million, but no explanation as to where it is coming from. Finally, in the process of the budget, I think that there is room to improve it, but I have not got time to go there today. In conclusion, I certainly can support the budget in its current form, but let's see if we can all improve it together. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I declare an interest as a councillor at Edinburgh City Council. I welcome Mr Bates by the Labour Party, and I think that it is helpful that we can air views at this early stage. I have been a local councillor here in Edinburgh for over 10 years. Over the past 10 years, I have seen this national government cut local authority money year by year, which means that front-line services have been cut. Again, this has happened this year, with local authorities here in Edinburgh going to get less money. Not only are we getting less money, but we are asking the people of Edinburgh to pay more money. Council tax levels at the moment, because of the SNP Government's proposals, will increase at band E by 7.5 per cent or band 8 at 22.5 per cent. That means that somebody living in a band 8's house will pay over £500 more. That is often elderly people, older people and other people who simply cannot afford to pay that money, but it gets worse. If, as the Labour SNP administration in Edinburgh is going to do, increase council tax by 3 per cent, it will mean a 26.2 increase for band 8. That takes it over £600. It does not stop there, because we are going to have a 1.6 per cent increase in household water and chilli charges, as well as the people of Edinburgh. It does not even stop there, because we have the Labour SNP administration in Edinburgh demanding a tourist tax on every bed here in Edinburgh. Not only do we want to tax people of Edinburgh more, we want to say, come to our city and pay more tax as well. It is simply unacceptable. Visit Scotland says that it would damage and hinder one of our best-performing industries in Scotland if we impose it. I would ask the minister, as she concludes today, to confirm whether he again says no to any form of bedroom levy tax. Having seen all this money increase, we would surely think that that is fine, because we are going to have local better services here in the city. However, we have seen that as not the case. Services are going to be cut here in Edinburgh as a result of the decisions made by the SNP Government. Local people will face less good services at education, social security services and other such areas. I think that we have simply got to say that this has to come to an end. Why? Because families and elderly people who are informed and disabled will be affected by this decision if this budget is passed today. I would argue, Deputy Presiding Officer, that this budget is simply unacceptable as it stands today. We, as a Conservative party, will vote against it. I hope that there will be courage among every party within the chamber to vote this budget down and to say to the SNP Government to protect local services and stop taxing when we are vulnerable in our society. I have to say that I am disappointed that the Labour Party is bringing forward this motion, which rejects the draft budget in its entirety. Just last May, the electorate delivered a resounding verdict on the manifestos that is put forward by each of the parties that are represented in the chamber. I am sure that no-one here needs reminding that the SNP won a historic third term, winning more seats than Labour and the Tories combined. Before detailing exactly what the Labour Party is refusing to support, I want to address the Conservative amendment and that oft-repeated claim that we are the highest tax part of the UK. Like many of the Conservative claims, it does not stand up to scrutiny. After a nine-year freeze on council tax, we still pay, on average, substantially less of that tax than folk south of the border. If we look at indirect taxation, as others have mentioned, like the prescription levy, we pay nothing while folk south of the border pay £8.40 per item. I agree that universal benefits that are available in Scotland are not available in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does that not logically take you to the place that we should have a more progressive taxation system to fund those welcome initiatives? Otherwise, what is happening is that we are cutting budgets to vulnerable people in order to sustain those budgets. Progressive taxation and universalism usually go together. We support universalism and this budget for Scottish taxpayers, the budget upholds the much-valued commitments to free education, free personal care and free healthcare at the point of need. Let's look at some of the specifics that the Labour Party are refusing to support. The Labour Party does not support increased investment for mental health. As someone who worked in mental health for 20 years and who is well aware that mental health is often being the poor relation of general medical services, I, for one, am very pleased to see that mental health is a focus of this budget. Investment in mental health will exceed £1 billion— Can I ask please that you let me hear the speaker can't hear her? And is set to exceed £5 billion over the course of this Parliament. By investing an additional £150 million in mental health provision over the next five years, that will help to reduce inequalities in access and support experienced by those with mental illness. No, I'm sorry, I don't have time to have taken one already. I have to agree with the sentiment expressed by Alex Rowley, and I too have heard that sentiment expressed, that continually comparing ourselves with the English NHS is aiming somewhat low. But I think that when criticism comes to this Government's management of the NHS in this Parliament, we have to ask the electorate to look at how the NHS is managed in the countries in which other parties are in charge. The Labour Party, apparently, does not support community health. An additional £500 million is being invested in primary care each year by the end of this Parliament. That commitment will mean that by 2021-22, for the first time, more than half of the NHS front-line spending will be in our community health service. Primary and community care is where most healthcare interactions begin and end, and that investment means that, as many people as possible will receive care at home or in a homely setting and undeniably meets the priorities of the Christie commission in terms of taking a preventative approach. The Labour Party, apparently, does not support economic growth. That budget delivers investment in new and existing infrastructure projects, focusing on the key drivers of economic growth. As a representative of the Highlands and Islands, I know that families and businesses in my region will welcome the investment in mobile and digital infrastructure. I know that the dualling of the A9 has been universally welcomed in my region. In the far north, we were delighted to hear a mention of the Berrydale braise in the draft budget. Of course, we want more money and faster delivery, but we know well that successive Governments in both Parliaments have failed to invest in highland infrastructure, and at last, with an SNP Government, we see some investment. Finally, I want to draw some attention to the budget's commitment to protecting the environment. It has to be very brief. You must finish exactly at the five minutes. Let me finish, then, by reiterating what the Government amendment states. There is much to support in this draft budget. Let's get to work and find consensus. Thank you very much. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Based on that speech, it means when the SNP voted against budgets, when we were in Government, it opposed a doubling spending on our national health service. I think that the member should get perhaps an education on how Parliament actually works, and perhaps Minister Macai can share that education with him. This is a political party that campaigned in a referendum against austerity, that campaigned in a UK general election against austerity, that campaigned for the Scottish Parliament election against austerity, but now, when it comes to setting their budget, they are accelerating austerity for local government across the country. Ten years of cuts and ten years of letting down local democracy. Look at this party. This is a party that demands powers come to this Parliament, but when they get the power, they do not want to use them. Then, Macai said at the finance committee that he would consider raising income tax if it happened in other parts of the UK. It seems that he is only a unionist when it comes to tax policy, or I should say that he is only a unionist when it comes to Tory tax policy, because the reality is that, under John Swinney and now under Derek Macai, we have a decade of cuts to Glasgow and a decade of cuts across Scotland. Since this party came to government, £324 million cuts from Glasgow's budget represent 17.5 per cent—£150 million of cuts in the next two years. This is a party that takes a Tory cut, trebls it and gives it to Glasgow and local government across the country. When we had a Glasgow MSP before, it is not amazing that we have Glasgow MSPs standing in this chamber and not once uttering opposition to cuts to the city that they are supposed to represent. Glasgow MSPs from Mr Mason all the way to the First Minister herself passing cuts to the city that they are supposed to represent. Just a moment and I will take an intervention, because the reality is that they are supposed to come here and stand up for Glasgow, instead they only stand up for the SNP. They are meant to be Glasgow's voice in this Parliament, not the SNP's voice in the city. I think that they should reflect on that when they vote for this budget. I am happy to take an intervention from Mr McHenry. I thank you for taking the intervention. I spoke about the arithmetic in the Parliament and the process, but it does not understand that if you vote against the budget, you are voting against £700 million of extra resources going to Scottish public services. I ask Mr McHenry why did he vote against Labour budgets in this Parliament? Why is he voting against budgets before? The reality is that he needs to understand that we have got to prosecute a case against a budget that is going to pass on £327 million of cuts to local government. I know that democracy in the SNP's eyes means that you do what you are told, but I am sorry that that is not the job of opposition parties to come here and do what Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP says. The job of this political party and indeed of this Parliament, every political party in this Parliament is to stand up for the communities that represent and try to deliver fairness for people across Glasgow and indeed across Scotland. I listened to Ms Forbes saying that we are saying a big fact, no. I will tell you what we are saying no to. We are saying no to austerity. We are saying no to cuts to local government. We are saying no to cutting off opportunity. We are saying no to persistent deprivation and letting people rot in our communities. We are saying no to cuts right across the length and breadth of our country, whether that be to social care, whether it be to education, whether it be to the NHS. I listened with interest to Marie Todd talking about the extra investment to mental health. The reality is that, under this Government, there are cuts to mental health budgets on IGBs right across the country. She shakes her head, but instead she should perhaps speak to her own colleagues in this Parliament. Finally, I want to say to this Parliament and indeed to the SNP. We hear a lot about mandate, about standing up for Scotland and looking out for those that struggle most in our communities. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to use the powers that we have been given by the people of Scotland to transform our communities and to transform the people's lives that we represent. Let's not waste this opportunity as some kind of political gimmick to have a game and a fight about something else. Let's instead use the powers of this Parliament to reverse cuts, to invest in opportunity, to invest in people's talent and to make Scotland the shining beacon right across the United Kingdom. Thank you very much. Ms McKee, I can give you only two minutes. Use them wisely. You are the last speaker. I am McKee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am where to start. Let's do a minute each on Labour and on the Tories. The Labour motion, frankly, is a bit of an embarrassment. It has not taken the time to write down what it wants to say and to put forward something that basically rejects the whole budget. It might as well have put a motion forward that says, SNP bad. It is that kind of absence of any proposals constructive of otherwise in the motion. It demonstrates why Labour is unfit to govern and also unfit to oppose, and it shows why the people of Scotland have continued to reject them at the ballot box. Can you sit down, Ms Lamont? She's only got two minutes. It's important to remember that the budgets based on the SNP's manifesto that we put forward were elected on in the election last year that Labour did so terribly bad. By rejecting that budget, Labour is rejecting the extra £500 million for the health service above inflation, which is £500 million more than the health service would have got based on the commitments in Labour's manifesto in that election last year. It is also rejecting the increase in the higher tax threshold, which is different to what is happening in the United Kingdom. We are not putting forward the inflation boost and increases on the 40 per cent rate, which the UK Labour John MacDonald supported, the UK Government doing down south, and I think that Labour might need to get their line on that a wee bit better. As far as the Tories are concerned, the whole premise of their motion based on the fact that an inaccurate assertion that Scotland is a high tax part of the UK, it's not when it comes to council tax, which is significantly lower in Scotland than it is down south, and it's not when it comes to business rates for 100,000 small businesses that don't have to pay the small business bonus, and it's not when it comes to the commitment to having a lower start and threshold for the basic rate tax payers that we're going to have in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. That's it. Thank you very much. Armas Wood, to closing speeches, sorry to be so curts just to be the time runs. Call Willie Rennie to wind up the liberal six minutes, please, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We've had a serious attempt at trying to build consensus this afternoon. We've had Tom Arthur accusing the Labour Party of not being able to run a minnage. We've had James Kelly asking the finance secretary to grow a backbone. We've had Graham Simpson saying that the SNP were moaning minnows. So this is a serious attempt, I think, to try and build consensus across the Parliament. I think that it's something that we should all respect for the real serious effort that everybody has tried to make, not just now, that it's tried to make. We need to get real. This Parliament needs to reach an agreement on the budget, and after this afternoon's debate, we're not going to reach an agreement. So where is the serious attempt to come to an agreement? There isn't across this chamber. It's just insults being flying back and forward between the two. John Mason did make an attempt. I have to say before he then swallowed it by saying that there was a bit of pocket money that could be handed out to the minor parties to try and reach an agreement. Well, we need far more than that to have a radical change in the budget. He then listed a long list of successes, a huge list of successes in his mind, but failed to mention some significant problems. College cuts, 150,000 places cut, the international standing of our schools flipping according to the OECD, 500,000 sick days lost by teachers because of mental health, 8,500 NHS staff going sick because of mental health, police morale being very low, the problems of the control rooms, the backfilling of civilian jobs by experienced police officers. Those are serious problems within our public services, and it's a serious attempt by our party to come up with some answers to that. I have to say that Jackie Baillie's speech was excellent this afternoon. I think that it was a very good speech. She set out something that I wholeheartedly agree with, that our budget and this budget, especially in the current context, should be focused on trying to get the economy back on track, because the economy in Scotland is in trouble. She rightly pointed out that unemployment is up, employment is down, and growth is really struggling. We've got Brexit coming down the track, and we have serious skills shortages. She also said that economists say that the best investment that we can make is in our people—I happen to believe that the best investment that we can make is in our children at the very earliest age with nursery education. However, she's right that investing in skills and people should be at the heart of this budget in order to grow the economy. The Tories say that the only way to grow our economy is to slash and burn, is to cut taxes. That's what they say is the only answer to it. I reject that approach to it. That's why I think that Jackie Baillie's approach— OK, brief on that. Perhaps he would agree with me that one of the key things that could be done to help to grow our economy is for the Scottish Government to rule out a destructive second independence referendum. He reached for consensus. He was doing well there, very well. I could agree with him on that. I thought that he was going to say something else that she would be disagreeing with, but on that I absolutely agree with him about it. Jackie Baillie was right with her focus, and she was right when she said that Nicola Sturgeon paraded herself in London, arguing that she was the anti-austerity party, but then failing to use the powers in our own Parliament here. Our offer is a reasonable offer. It's costed. We've said that we would put income tax up by a modest one penny, which should raise £500 million. In the letter to Derek Mackay, we have come down from that. We're not expecting to get all of our budget, all of our manifesto in the first budget. We want it delivered over the Parliament, of course, but we're prepared not just now. We're prepared to be reasonable. That's why we have limited our request to Derek Mackay in this first budget. We've said that there should be an increase back up to the level that it was for colleges at its peak of £93 million. We've said that the pupil premium needs to match at least what we're doing in England, where it's proven to be a success in closing the inequality gap. We've said that the police should get an extra £20 million. We've said that we should deal with the inequality that there is for transport to the Northern Isles, where they don't have the RET system. We need some measures on flights but also on ferries. We've said that there needs to be some attempts to try to deal with the problems in the alcohol and drug partnerships. All of those things, we believe, are at the heart of getting our economy back on track, investing in people, trying to deal with the mental health problems that are clearly existing in our public services, with so many people going off sick. Being able to invest in our people is the best way to get our economy back on track. I make a plea. I think that we're heading towards another election. I don't want to be cataclysmic about this, but if the debate next week is like the debate this week, we're not going to have an agreement and we're going to have to make some compromises. There's going to have to be an attempt, I have to say, from both Labour and the Conservatives to come to the table with some serious proposals, because so far I have not seen them. We've made a big effort to come forward and talk with Derek Mackay and I'm meeting him later on today to follow up with our discussions. It might not be successful. In fact, the gap is huge just now between what Derek Mackay wants and what I want. It's a huge gap and we'll need to work to close that gap, but others will need to step up and make a serious effort to try and get this budget or we're heading towards an election. I agree with Willie Rennie that it's been a mixed debate at best. Opposition parties in a period of minority government need to come forward with positive and constructive ideas, but we also need a minority government to demonstrate a willingness to compromise and to move ground. We haven't yet heard anything specific from the Government on that. Mr Mackay said that this is a historic budget, and that's absolutely right. We're setting income tax policy for the first time in Scotland in a budget from this Parliament. Let's take the historic action that is necessary and that that opportunity affords us. Let's take the action that we've argued for historically that, including many SNP members, activists and politicians, have historically argued for on progressive taxation. During the committee scrutiny, I asked the finance secretary about his commitment that progressivity needs to be a core element of the Scottish Government's tax policies. I asked him whether he believes that current income tax rates and thresholds are progressive enough at the moment. I don't think that I've got a clear answer to that question in principle. It seems to me that if the Scottish Government is presenting pretty much a status quo tax policy from the rates and thresholds that apply this year, then they're implying that income tax is progressive enough at present and doesn't need to change. I don't think that that should be accepted. There's an unstated aspect to this debate as well about what the purpose of tax policy is. Of course, part of the purpose is to raise the revenue that we need to invest in public services. We know that the impact on services is mentioned by pretty much every political party. The impact on services will be significant. Even if the Conservatives believe that economic goals should be used to expand the tax base, I would have to say that making sure that we close down the corporate loopholes that have allowed corporate profits to be taken out of the tax base is one of the ways that we could be doing that. Even if they think that economic policies can expand the tax base, councils are setting their budgets now with the resources that we will provide them now in the coming weeks in this budget. We need to be realistic about the practical and immediate consequences of the choices that we're making. However, there is another purpose of tax policy as well, and that is to provide fairness in the distribution of wealth in our society. We need to proactively reverse the unfair distribution and the centralisation of wealth, the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands over recent years and decades. Let me restate once again green proposals for income tax during last year's Scottish Parliament election. Yes, a significant increase in the additional rate but an increase in the higher rate as well and breaking the basic rate into two so that we reduce income tax for everybody earning below the average full-time salary. By doing that, we can make sure that we redistribute wealth in a fairer way. That is not the only way of achieving that. I have heard others talk about introducing a 30p band, and I suspect that that argument will grow over the coming year. However, we need to take action this year if we are going to begin to reverse that trend over recent years. There is a long way to go to rectify the long history of unjust and unfair economic policy that is designed around this notion, the false notion that there are a small number of people who should be described as wealth creators in our society. In reality, all of us are involved in the creation of wealth, whether because we are wealthy investors or business people or because we work for our wage or because we care for the next generation or educate the next generation or because we volunteer in our community, all of us are wealth creators and deserve to be remunerated fairly. That means reversing the concentration of wealth. I am disappointed by the fixation on increasing the personal allowance. I hear that from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. I regret that despite hearing SNP members share my objection to SNP policy in the past, it still seems to be SNP policy. Increasing the personal allowance benefits nothing to those on the lowest incomes, because they are already below that personal allowance level. Most of the benefits of increases to the personal allowance go to households on higher than average incomes. It is not a progressive way to redistribute wealth in our society. Derek Mackay said that that should not be a matter of playing games. I agree completely. We have seen in the past that brinkmanship is the wrong way to have these debates. I will and my colleagues will approach that matter with seriousness, but that applies to the Government as well. I have no interest in theatrics for the sake of it in tonight's vote. I will abstain on the Government's amendment. On that basis, I expect that it may pass, but we will be voting against that amended motion unless it includes the Green amendment as well. Discussions mentioned in the Government's amendment can be constructive. They have certainly been friendly, professional and I appreciate the opportunity, but it is too soon yet to judge whether they have been constructive because they have led to no substantive outcome yet. To be clear, as well as voting against that amendment, if it does not include the Green amendment tonight, we would also find ourselves taking the same position on the budget itself if it does not include meaningful change on taxation to fund local services in Scotland. I am sorry to cut people in such an important debate, but I have to move on. Donald Cameron, please to close for the Conservatives six minutes. The motion put before the chamber today is succinct and clear. Equally, our proposed amendment is just as apt. I do not intend in those closing remarks to cover the same ground as Murdo Fraser, except to restate that, given the Scottish Government budget is increasing thanks to decisions taken at Westminster, it flies in the face of all logic and fairness for Derek Mackay to continue to insist that Scotland will become the most taxed part of the UK. Before the Christmas break, we heard the Scottish Government's draft budget from him, and it is clear that, at present, that budget has the support of the governing party alone and nobody else. This is for a very simple reason. It is because there are so many problems with it that this Government has chosen not to address. I would like to concentrate on two areas that are of particular interest—health and sport. At the time that he launched the draft budget, I asked Derek Mackay a simple question. I asked how much of the £72 million stated to be an improvement fund for primary care, and GP services will go directly in support of Scotland's GPs. A fair question, I hope. Instead, the cabinet secretary not only did not answer the question, but he decided to ignore the concerns of Scotland's GPs. He suggested that I was asking for an increase in funding when, in fact, all that I was doing was asking for the detail of one of his commitments. With others, complaints that funding has been cut were—and today still are—characterised as calls for increases in spending. This Government has formed with failing to tackle the big issues in health, and I want to go through them. Let's start with a damning report from Audit Scotland last year. Back in November, when we debated that report, I told Parliament that the report was critical of the fact that this Government has made little progress in shifting funding from hospitals to primary care, despite the fact that, for over 10 years, almost every Audit Scotland report has called for this funding shift. We know that that shift is happening, but it is moving far too slowly, and Audit Scotland has been routinely critical of it. It has taken almost 10 years for this Government—I don't know yet—of time. It has taken almost 10 years for this Government to address this recommendation by Audit Scotland, and the fact that the Government envisages that half of front-line NHS spending will be incurred by primary services by 2021. That will mean that it will have taken almost 15 years to get to that point from when Audit Scotland first raised this. Derek Mackay's budget announced £13.2 billion of allocator spending to health and sport, and it took great pleasure in announcing the real terms and cash terms increase. The SNP regularly likes to tell us that it is protecting the health budget in Scotland and increasing it in real terms, but it also likes to tell us regularly and regularly take pot shots at the health service in the rest of the UK. For instance, how often do we hear them compare the performance of the NHS in Scotland with the NHS in England, often gloating that the NHS here performs better? Well, for once, let's indulge them in a direct comparison. During the last Parliament, health spending increased in Scotland by 3.4 per cent in real terms and 9.7 in cash terms. However, in England, health spending has increased by 9 per cent in real terms and 15.6 per cent in cash terms. That's more than double the investment in real terms compared to SNP-run Scotland. Sorry, I don't have time. If members on the Government benches don't like hearing that, then don't take my word for it. Listen to the Institute for Fiscal Studies that said that the Scottish Government has chosen to protect the NHS in Scotland slightly less than it has been protected in England. The same can be said for general practice. Over the course of the last Parliament, spending on general practice increased by 1.4 per cent in real terms in Scotland, while in England spending rose by 4.6 per cent in real terms. That's more than three times the level of spending commitments made by the SNP Government on general practice. Let me turn to sport, because this area is often overlooked in this debate. The amount invested in the sports budget and the current draft budget has fallen from £45.6 million to £41.8 million. That's a fall of 8.3 per cent in real terms. Only last night, many members from across the chamber spoke in my members' debate about the need for action to tackle Scotland's growing obesity crisis and the necessity to get people more physically active. By wielding the action on the sports budget, it is my fear that this will hamper our efforts to get Scotland fit and healthy rather than improving our current position. In fact, in the health committee yesterday, I asked officials from Sports Scotland about the implications that this budget proposal would have for them. The chair of Sports Scotland said that it has quite serious implications at that level in terms of what we are trying to do. He spoke about the reduction in lottery funding and a double whammy. He said that if the strategy moving forward is about Scotland becoming a healthy nation and to become active, the last thing that you should be doing is cutting the sports budget. The chief executive said that he cannot just take lumps out of the system and hope that it will continue to deliver in engagement and participation terms, but also success with medals. That is the reality of this budget on the ground. It is a far cry from the dry figures and statistics in this document. However, let's remember the effects of the draft budget on everyday Scottish life, the child who will not be able to participate in a local sports team being just one example. The brief time left makes some comments about the speech of others. It has been quite a confusing afternoon. I know that the budget process involves flirtations with other parties, but we have had John Mason sounding like he would prefer to be on the Labour benches. We have had Jackie Baillie sounding like she might prefer to be on our benches. To cap it all, there was reference to a new mythical political figure, Murdo Mackay. I cannot wait to meet him. Jackie Baillie made a serious point. She spoke about the importance of growing the economy, because if you want a bigger tax base, you have to grow the economy. Andrew Wilson gets it, but no one else in the SNP knows. Andrew Wilson has to stop right there. Thank you very much. I will call Kevin Stewart to close for the Government. Seven minutes, please. Presiding Officer, it falls to me to close this debate for the Scottish Government today. I will respond to some of the comments that members have made this afternoon, but I also want to focus on two issues that I think are central to this debate—the need for stability in our economy and wider society and our partnership with local government. I would like to say that today's debate has provided a welcome opportunity to discuss the Government's positive vision for Scotland and the benefits of our tax and spending proposals for 2017-18. However, I do not know whether the debate has been welcomed or not with some of the ramies that have gone on, although I have to say that there have been some fairly constructive contributions, too. However, I want to concentrate on some of that positive vision, because our proposals include record funding for our NHS, additional investment in educational attainment in childcare and real-terms protection for our police budget. We are proposing what we believe to be a proportionate approach to income tax, building on the principles-based approach that we have taken to other devolved taxes, and we are proposing a competitive business rates regime. The budget contains key measures to support our economy and investment in infrastructure, including funding to progress our commitment to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, improve energy efficiency, enhance our digital infrastructure and take forward key transport projects across Scotland. Our plans maintain our commitment to equality, inclusion and support for those in the lowest incomes, including through the Scottish living wage. It provides a fair settlement for local government, which is where a large proportion of the debate has focused. Local authorities are key partners for us. They deliver vital services and contribute massively to the delivery of shared objectives in education, health, social care, economic development, housing and the environment. I will give way to Mr Rumbles. I wondered, as an Aberdeen City MSP, whether he thinks that the funding settlement for Aberdeen City is a fair settlement, being at the lowest of all the settlements in the country. I pray tribute to the late Brian Adam, who ensured that this Government put in place a funding floor that meant that Aberdeen City and the north-east were much better resourced than they ever were. Let us look at some of the things that have come up in the conversation around some of the funding issues. Mr Briggs talked in his contribution about council tax. What he failed to say to the people of Edinburgh, who he was supposedly speaking to during that speech, was that Edinburgh, like every other local authority, will keep every penny of the council tax raised in that authority and every penny of non-domestic rates. That is the situation. We have set out in this year's budget a deal for local government that we believe is fair and which offers considerable investment in key local services, an additional £120 million in funding for educational attainment, an increase of £107 million in funding to support the integration of adult health and social care, including meeting the costs of paying the living wage in that sector, an increase in local government capital grant of £150 million compared to last financial year, and an additional £111 million will be raised through the council tax rebanding, which, as I have already said, will all be retained locally. Local authorities will also be free to increase the council tax generally by up to 3 per cent next year, generating, if they so choose, up to a further £70 million. That is a fair and substantial investment package in local services across Scotland. The Tories have said much to say about council tax today, yet their manifesto proposals were little different from the ones that we have put forward. Unlike south of the border, no local authority here is talking about the kind of rises that are being proposed in England of 15 per cent in some local authorities. I want to turn now to stability in our economy and public services. Willie Rennie, in his contribution, highlighted the challenges that are faced because of the Brexit scenario. Brexit poses risks to our economy and creates uncertainty for businesses, communities and households across Scotland. I think that we have got to take that into account in everything that we do. I have many more things that I could say, but I realise that I have shortened time. How long have I got? Seven minutes. Okay, I will take a bit longer. I will give way to Mr Rennie. He mentioned that Brexit was a threat, but what exactly is he going to do about it? Is he going to change his budget to reflect the real challenges that we have, or is he just going to carry on as normal? Cabinet Secretary for Finance has already taken cognisance of some of those challenges. If Mr Rennie thinks that there are further things in that budget that need to be changed in that regard, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will listen to those proposals. The cabinet secretary has been in listening mode. We have to take cognisance of that. Not supporting the budget bill and a tax position through the Scottish rate resolution will leave Scotland in a position where it is no approved budget, and that will affect our vital public services. We will forgo £38 billion of public spending, including crucial investment in health and local government and education, and vital public spending that pays for vital public services. I urge all members of this Parliament to engage in meaningful discussions with the cabinet secretary to offer credible alternatives for consideration. Mr Balfour, during his speech, said that members should have the courage to reject that budget. I think that members should have the courage to converse, compromise and reach consensus and create a budget that is best for Scotland. I start with a moment of consensus and agree with colleagues across the chamber that this is perhaps not being the best advert for this place this afternoon. Kate Forbes in many ways started it. She was the first to decry it as a petty and pure-ile debate, and it then became a theme across SNP speeches. I found that a little bit ironic, because, of course, it was the finance secretary Derek Mackay, in his opening remarks, who told us that, if we voted down on this budget, wages would go unpaid and the likes would go out. That appeared to be the strongest argument that he could muster for voting for his budget. In every attempt to argue that substantial investment was going into Scotland's public services rung hollow from Derek Mackay, because for every pronouncement that he tried to make, there is an independent expert telling us that he is about to make £327 million worth of cuts to public services. What was also petty and pure-ile was then to hear from Marie Todd that to somehow vote against the budget was to vote against any money for mental health. That to vote against the budget means that you are against money for schools. That to vote against the budget meant that you were against any attempt to grow the economy. Then we had Tom Arthur's speech, and in passion's speech, with much good things to say about the damage that the Tories are doing to our country. He crusaded in this speech against the paucity or the apparent paucity of Labour's motion and demanded a more specific motion. Just minutes after Bruce Crawford had told us off for daring to debate the budget at all, which was somehow frustrating the whole scrutiny of the process. I know that Tom Arthur is a good man. I know that he is a socialist. I have heard him say very often how much against cuts he is. What a shame it was there for to hear him refuse to take any interventions, because had he taken some interventions, Labour members would have had the opportunity to remind him of the cuts that Derek Mackay made to his community when it was the SNP that runs the Renfrewshire Council. I will let the member in once I have reminded him of those cuts, because of course it was the SNP in Renfrewshire that cut 200 teachers. It was the SNP in Renfrewshire who cut school buses for children, and it was the SNP in Renfrewshire who cancelled support for students struggling to get through school. That is the ones that he actually made. I could read out all the ones that we managed to stop, but that is a terrible record from the SNP. Perhaps the most pure-out and pathetic thing that we heard in this debate this afternoon was the suggestion from SNP members that somehow you could close your eyes and ignore that there were any cuts at all. When they must see the impact of those cuts in their communities each and every single day, they are simply not doing their jobs properly enough. I am happy to hear from the finance secretary. I remind Kezia Dugdale that we are in a Parliament, not a council chamber, and maybe that is the way this debate should have been conducted this afternoon. Is it not alarming that the Labour leader does not recognise that in voting against the budget it votes against £38 billion on public services, and in extra £700 million extra towards public services coming from our budget? Kezia Dugdale I think that it is very important that Scotland understands the type of finance secretary that it has. I just read out a whole list of cuts that he made when he was in charge of his council in Renfrewshire. Here are some ones that he tried to make but he was stopped from doing. He tried to cut £1.25 million from a home link service that supported vulnerable families. He also tried to rapidly increase the care charges that elderly people face and he tried to cut classroom assistance and was defeated. That is the type of finance secretary that we have, and that is the reality of the debate that we have had this afternoon. I was very fortunate on Sunday afternoon to be able to see train spotting 2. In that film, of course, is the story of four Edinburgh men living in 1996 in a city with strawp by drugs and all the rest of it. It is a first-class film, fantastic cinematography, and what shines through that film is just how beautiful Edinburgh is. There are two castles featured in that film, Edinburgh Castle and Craig Miller Castle, and in the grounds of Craig Miller Castle is Spud's new house. Spud's new house is in Craig Miller and it has been regenerated by the Labour Party. That is a community that is volatile and on the edge. That is where it matters. Those £327 million worth of cuts are about to undermine all that progress that was made in Craig Miller. Let's talk about the Venture project. This is a breakfast club. In fact, it is more than a breakfast club. It does not just provide tea and toast in this breakfast club. It knocks on the doors of chaotic families, gets the kids out of their beds, puts them in a bus and they get them to the school gates. When he cuts £327 million out of council services, that is the type of service that he is shutting down. It doesn't have to be this way. There is another project in that community, Craig Miller Books for Babies, which provides critical early literacy services for families between zero and three. Another service that is on the knife age, running from one charity grant to another charity grant. That is the type of service that his Government should support. Again, the Neighbourhood Alliance, another project that seeks to protect and advance that community in Craig Miller, is about to go under. With it will go sporting facilities for vulnerable families, with it will go the community centre, with it will go the development trust. It does not have to be this way. That is the thing that the SNP needs to understand. Denic Mackay, when he was putting his budget together, had two choices to make. He could complain about Tory cuts but do nothing about them. Or he could complain about Tory cuts and use the powers of this place to stop them. Unfortunately, for the most vulnerable people in our society, Denic Mackay and the SNP went with the former. Labour is here to say that it doesn't have to be this way. This Parliament has the powers to raise enough revenue to stop the £327 million pounds worth of cuts and instead choose to invest in our public services. Our plans would mean the richest few paying their fair share through a 50p top rate of tax on those earning more than £150,000 a year. That is something the SNP used to support, but which the finance secretary said he would now only do if the Tory UK Government did the same and they did it first. Not quite stronger for Scotland, Presiding Officer. By setting an income tax rate just one penny higher than the rate set by Philip Hammond, we can stop the cuts to local services like schools and care of the elderly and instead choose to invest to give our young people a better chance of getting on in life regardless of their background. We can choose instead to invest in social care so that more older people can be cared for at home, which will in turn tackle the growing NHS crisis. We can provide support to the most vulnerable instead of pulling the rug out from them, which I see in Craig Miller and across Edinburgh every single day. Tonight, this Parliament can unite together to say that there is a different way. I know that members in different parties will not support everything that I have called for here today and will have their own particular concerns about the Government's proposals, but I hope that they will agree with me that the budget in its current form is unacceptable. We do not have to put the life chances of the next generation at risk by imposing £327 million of cuts on communities across the country. There is a better way, and I hope that members grasp that opportunity tonight. That concludes our debate on the Scottish budget. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3603, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, and setting out a business programme. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 3603. Firmly moved. As asked to speak against the motion, I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 3603, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 3604, on the designation of a lead committee in relation to the UK Digital Economy Bill. Moved. There are six questions as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 3576.4, in the name of Derek Mackay, which seeks to amend motion 3576, in the name of Alec Rowley, on the Scottish budget, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3576.4, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes, 63, no, 58, there were five abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 3576.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alec Rowley, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 3576.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is yes, 30, no, 96, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 3576.2, in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alec Rowley, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Patrick Harvie is yes, 28, no, 98, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 3576.3, in the name of Willie Rennie, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie is yes, 5, no, 121, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 3576, in the name of Alec Rowley, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 3576, in the name of Alec Rowley, as amended, is yes, 63, no, 63, there were no abstentions. The motion as amended is tied, and I will therefore cast my vote, and as I previously intimated to Parliament, I will vote against the motion, so the motion is not agreed. The final question is that motion 3604, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on the designation of a lead committee, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed, and we will now move to members' business, in the name of Emma Harper, on celebrating burns, and we'll just take a few moments to change seats.