 Wel, y next item of business is the the debate on motion 12130 in the name of Tom Arthur on local government finance Scotland order 2024. Members wishing to participate in debates you press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and move the motion. Minister, up to seven minutes please. Os gaf selio, to ddesdeb attackers on the local government finance order seeks parliaments approval to the guaranteed allocations of revenue funding to individual local authorities for 2024-25. It also seeks agreement to the allocation of additional funding for 2023-24, which has been identified since the 2023 order that was approved on 1 March last year. We cannot ignore the hugely challenging circumstances in which we have had to agree the Scottish budget this year. Our block grant funding for this budget is derived from UK Government spending decisions and has fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since 2022-23, a real terms drop of £0.5 billion, and our capital spending power is due to contract by almost 10 per cent in real terms over the next five years. The reality is that the amount that Scotland has available to spend is still largely driven by the block grant set by successive UK Governments, whose constraint of public expenditure prolongs the austerity that is felt by public services. Scotland and the rest of the UK required more money for infrastructure, public services and fair pay deals. The UK Government did not deliver for Scotland in the autumn statement, and we have no advanced information on what lies ahead with the spring statement on 6 March. However, we will always do our best with the powers that we have, and a 2024-25 Scottish budget is a budget built on our values, setting out in tough times to protect people, sustain services and take pragmatic steps to addressing the climate emergency. The Scottish Government is providing over £14 billion in the 2024-25 local government finance settlement. The revenue funding of almost £13.4 billion includes £147 million of funding for councils that have chosen to freeze council tax in 2024-25. We are also providing almost £0.7 billion of support for capital expenditure. Including the funding to freeze council tax, we are increasing the resources that are available next year by more than £574.6 million. The 2024-25 local government finance settlement provides an additional 4.3 per cent of the real-terms increase of 2.5 per cent compared with 2023-24. As I outlined yesterday, the First Minister has confirmed her intention to pass on up to £62.7 million of Barnett consequentials following the UK Government's spring budget as a result of the recent announcement on ring-fenced adult social care funding in England. That funding will be available to councils to protect their households by freezing council tax, and local authorities will have full autonomy to allocate the additional funding based on local needs and priorities without the need to produce productivity plans as required in England. The Deputy First Minister also confirmed her intention to pass on any consequentials associated with increased teacher pension employer contributions and to prioritise £4 million increase in the island's cost of living fund in direct response to concerns raised by some island authorities on the cost of living and delivering services in island communities. The budget also invests in the Verity House agreement by baselining almost £1 billion of funding across health, education, justice, net zero and social justice prior to agreement on an insurance and accountability framework. The First Minister mentioned the Verity House agreement. Has he checked with the First Minister whether it is still a thing? Does it still exist? The member may not have heard me and his excitement to make an intervention. We have baselined almost £1 billion into the local government funding settlement as part of the Verity House agreement, and we are committed to taking that forward across a range of issues, some of which were set out by the Deputy First Minister yesterday. As we do every year, to reach the number that we have presented today, we have compared budget to budget. That provides the best like for like comparison of available funding. Adopting any other approach would be to mislead Parliament. It is important to note that the total funding package is already finalised following the passing of the Scottish budget bill. Today's debate seeks Parliament's approval for the distribution of this approved total funding to individual local authorities. The order seeks approval for the distribution and payment of almost £12.8 billion of the revenue total of almost £13.3 billion, with the balance mainly made up of specific grant funding, which is administered separately. The £12.8 billion is a combination of general revenue grant of over £9.7 billion and the distributable amount of non-domestic rates income, which has been set at almost £3.1 billion. There remains a further £201 million of revenue funding plus the funding of the council tax freeze that will be notified to local authorities once the distribution has been discussed and agreed with COSLA. That will be included for approval in the 2025 order. There is also specific revenue funding that is paid directly by the relevant policy areas under separate legislation, amounting to over £263 million. The 2024 order also seeks approval for over £403 million of changes to funding allocations for 2023-24. The full list of changes can be found in the report to the 2024 order. The Government recognises the financial challenges that local authorities across Scotland and indeed the whole public sector are facing. The fiscal constraints that we share also emphasise the need to focus urgently on improving delivery of public services. It is designed around the needs and interests of the people and communities of Scotland. However, we must also continue to press the UK Government for additional funding for our shared priorities and pressures. I welcome support from across the Parliament in that respect. The budget bill passed by Parliament yesterday ensured that total funding from the Scottish Government to local government next year increased in cash terms, but also in real terms. That order confirms the distribution to individual councils and the proposals reflect the crucial role that local authorities and their employees continue to play in our communities. I move that the Parliament approves the local government finance order for 2024. I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives on today's local government finance order. From the outset, it is right that we acknowledge that the 2024-25 local government settlement has been decided in the context of a number of challenging fiscal circumstances. Inflation may have fallen significantly since the height seen in 2023, but we are still dealing with its global effects. The illegal war in Ukraine continues to affect energy prices and disruption to trade in the Red Sea risks disruption in European economies even further. Despite that, analysis by The Spice makes it clear that the Scottish Government's overall budget has increased this year in real terms, but any hopes that that would mean that councils received from years of underfunding did not last long. COSLA described this year's financial settlement as leaving councils at real and significant financial risks for the coming year. In practical terms, that budget means that councils are planning yet more cuts to local services. To take just one example, West Dunbartonshire, in my own region, is having to close a £8.3 million budget gap. Potential cost savings measures include increasing fees for school breakfast clubs and reducing financial assistance for school uniform costs. Decisions such as this are not easy for councils to take, but they have become too common in recent years. The SNP often complains about how the UK Government treats a devolved Scottish Government. In reality, if you want to see an example of disrespectful relationship between two tiers of government, you need no look no further, Presiding Officer, than the Scottish Government's approach to local councils. Just take the continued controversy around the SNP's council tax freeze. As one example of this, which was announced without even consulting councils, it was also a policy that the SNP repeatedly promised would be fully funded, something that we know now is not the case. Despite COSLA having asked for £310 million to fund this freeze, the 2024-25 budget offers just £147 million. The irony is that the botched policy announcement came just a few short months after the SNP's Scottish Government announced the Verity House agreement, which promised a renewed relationship with local government, one with improved engagement on budget issues. Councils have said that a change of relationship is desperately needed. They want a more long-term relationship, one that is focused on outcomes. The Verity House agreement gave them hope that this was coming, but having spoken to nearly every local authority in Scotland, it is clear that this agreement is falling short. Here are some of the things that councils have said directly to me on their meetings about the SNP's relationship with the local government on the Verity House agreement. The agreement is not worth the paper, it is written on. We have a degree of optimism, but a huge amount of scepticism. Like a zombie, it has life, but bleeding to death by the Scottish Government requirements, including teacher numbers and the national care service. The role of government is not valued, talk is cheap, but actions are now required. The Scottish Government is not delivering their side of the agreement. The relationship is broken. There is a lack of trust and transparency from the Scottish Government. We are not buttoned up the back. This is the worst settlement that we have seen, Presiding Officer. Given the damning verdicts, it is perhaps not surprising that, two weeks ago, council leaders wrote to the Scottish Government to declare a fundamental position of dispute. Before concluding, I would like to make clear that we will not be… I think that the minister should listen to how we are going to vote. Do we have enough time? It is up to the member whether she gives way. We are tight for time, but you will get a little bit of it back. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. She has said that she spoke to councillors. Can I just establish that the responses that she received from councillors was that in her corporate capacity as a local authority or was it the individual councillors that she spoke to? Can she clarify that for the record, please? A very good question. It is great that I can clarify what all the councillors listened to me. I have spoken to 31 council CEOs right on the top of the chain to speak about the cuts that the Scottish National Party Government is taking. It would be devastating for local services. I hope that that satisfies the minister. Before concluding, I would like to make it clear that we will not be voting against the order at decision time today, as it is required for councils to receive their revenue funding that they have been allocated. However, nor can we support this order, which will only continue the trend of ever-warsening council budgets. We will therefore be abstaining on today's vote. In conclusion, with this year's budget, councils have yet again been left with a financial settlement that leaves them unable to deliver the services that their communities expect. Instead of deciding how to improve local services, councils are currently signing off budgets that deliver more cuts to services. We badly need to see a new approach to how councils are funded and an approach that empowers councils to deliver on their communities in the way that they know best. The Scottish Government says that it wants to build a relationship with the local government that is mutual, trust and respectful at its core, that onus is now on the SNP to deliver this. Mark Griffin is up to five minutes. We will not oppose the order today because we know that it is necessary to get the funding allocated out to councils, but while we will not attempt to block it, we cannot support it. As we indicated during various stages of the budget process, we do not support the 24-25 budget because people are paying more and getting less. Councils and the democratic mandate that they receive from communities have been treated with complete contempt and decisions seem to have been made in a haphazard and chaotic way. The chaotic and disrespectful way that councils have been treated also seem to have put the final mail in the coffin of the Verity house agreement. From the very outset, the decision to impose a freeze on council tax has had a whiff of the thick of it about it. The First Minister, panicked by a by-Alexand Rubin, announces a freeze at party conference in front of astounded SNP councillors without letting his cabinet, civil servants or even his coalition partners know about it. Never mind having any input. In direct conflict with the Verity house agreement, it is just signed with local authorities. The finance secretary is then sent out to assure councils and Parliament that it will be fully funded. It is just on that point around consultation. Can the member confirm that council Stephen McCabe consulted with Mr Griffin as the party's local government finance spokesperson before he wrote to Michael Grove asking Michael Gove to go and bypass this Parliament? Can he confirm that that is something that Mr Griffin approves of? Mr McCabe is a democratically elected leader of his own council and does so in his capacity without any instruction from me or anyone else. He has his own democratic mandate and I think that it is about time that the Scottish Government started recognising the democratic mandate that councils have and respecting it, because that is where we have got to this problem in the first place. Like I said, the cabinet secretary for finance was sent out to assure councils and Parliament that that freeze would be fully funded but completely failed to give any details, repeating over and over that it would be down to negotiations with the valued partners in local government who were snubbed by that very announcement. The minister appeared at committee again and could not give any explanation of what a fully funded councils tax freeze meant. Then we got the details, the result of those in-depth negotiations with councils, which just seemed to be the Government plucking a figure of their own out of the air, because COSLA rejected it completely. Then, after weeks of the Government insisting that the council tax freeze was fully funded, all of a sudden it was not fully funded because another £63 million was found. However, the kick in the teeth to local councils was that that funding mostly comes from UK Barnett consequentials, which should have been going to councils anyway. It would be funny if it was not absolutely tragic. It is the councillors in all 32 local authorities from every political party, including the SNP, who are having to make heart-breaking decisions, decisions that are of this Government's making because it is this Government who has cut billions of pounds cumulatively from council budgets, council services, services that the most vulnerable rely on since 2030-2013. Roads are crumbling, teacher numbers are being cut, libraries are closing and bins are overflowing. Now it is left to those councillors to make those tough decisions to balance the books, and they are taking the tough decisions on whether to accept the freeze to protect households or to try and protect services. I think that we all should be very concerned about the context around the discussions that they are having on whether to accept that, because what I have been told is that, as a result of the damage to the relationship between national and local government, the lack of trust whatsoever between those two spheres of government, is that those making decisions at councils, those at political and officer level, are making recommendations on budgets and freezing council tax on the basis that they cannot trust the Government to baseline the freeze funding. There are councils right now, worker on the basis that the Government will give with one hand and take away with another, and that they will be in a position next year where they would have to impose huge increases in council tax just to stay afloat. That is hardworking non-political council officers and council chambers of all political make-up who have that level of distrust, and this Government should shock and appall everyone in this chamber, and it shows just how damaged and toxic the relationship between local and national government has become. I hope that the minister will reflect on that and that we are not in the same position as we are now when it comes to the order next year. I now call Willie Rennie up to four minutes. Let's remember the Verity House agreement, which the minister could not confirm whether it still existed or not when I intervened, stated this. Positive work in relationship, mutual trust, respect, joint leadership, shared priorities—where we disagree, we will seek to deal with these matters constructively in a spirit of co-operation through the engagement mechanisms described in section D of this agreement. That was before the conference decision, where the First Minister made overnight, in a matter of minutes, the decision to freeze the council tax without consulting any local authorities, without even consulting his advisers, without consulting any officials within the government, probably without consulting any of the backbenchers here today. In a process that would probably make Liz Truss blush, because it was reckless, it was cavalier and it drove a coach and horses right through the Verity House agreement. The Verity House agreement is as good as well as dead, and the minister should just acknowledge that. The trust between local and central government has completely been disappeared. There is no chance of that recovering with this government, because it is not just those mechanisms where it is pretty clear that it is broken down. I listen to ministers in private. I hear what they say about councillors. It is exactly the same complaint that members in this Parliament make about Westminster, about the disdain and the distrust. That is exactly how they treat local councillors. I have heard it. Take teachers. The language around local authorities on teacher numbers is appalling. The implication is that nobody who is a councillor cares one jot about schools, that their only intention is to cut teacher numbers. The argument had a whole blown in it when their very own Glasgow City Council, led by the SNP, is proposing to cut 450 teachers over the next three years. Do they not care about education? Of course, they care about education. It is because they have no money that they are having to make this decision because they are right up against it. However, the minister carries on. All the ministers carry on as if councillors are either stupid or do not care. They need to change that attitude, because it is not the way for government to work together. If I can repeat positive work-in relationship, mutual trust, respect, joint leadership, share priority, it is all bunkum. It does not mean anything. They were duped from the very beginning because the Government had no intention of working. Anytime there was any pressure put on, they would do the dirty on local government. That is exactly what has happened. I have not seen public services in local councils in this bad estate ever. I have been in politics now for 18 years in various parliaments and I have never seen it as bad as this. In terms of housing, the state of the roads, the state of social work, all of it is crumbling because this Government does not respect local authorities. It makes the cuts way more than it needs to do for local government. It has done it for years and now we are paying the price of that. The pressure cooker within schools is astonishing. I have not seen staff so depressed because the way this Government ignores their fears about what is happening in the class. That is what they are reaping because they sowed the seeds of this a long time ago. As any suggestion that we are going to reform the council tax, I do not know how many working groups I have been in, but the Greens who are not here today seem to believe that they have a new dawn on this, that somehow we are going to reform the council tax. The citizens assembly is apparently going to come up with an answer. There is a new working group on top of all the other working groups that exist. The backbenchers are not here and the minister has been compelled to turn up, I presume. They are laughing at this. The reality is that they have no intention of doing anything on council tax reform. They are just stringing them along because they are doing exactly what they have done for years and treating local government with contempt. Thank you, and I call on Tom Arthur to wind up the date minister up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The 2024 local government finance order before Parliament today seeks approval to the guaranteed payment of almost £12.8 billion in revenue support to be paid to Scotland's 32 authorities. Next year, the Scottish Government will provide local authorities with the total funding package worth more than £14 billion, delivering an increase of more than £574.6 million or 4 per cent. That is a real-terms increase of 2.5 per cent, despite the challenging circumstances that I outlined in my opening statement. There is also further Scottish Government support of almost £629 million to be paid out with the local government finance settlement. That includes the attainment Scotland fund, skills for the future programme, home energy efficiency programmes and city deals that are paid to local authorities, bringing the Scottish Government's total investment to almost £14.7 billion. The settlement also provides continued fiscal certainty through our policy of guaranteeing the combined general revenue grant plus non-domestic rates funding set out in this order. That means that any loss of non-domestic rate income will be compensated for by an increased general revenue grant, effectively underwriting the critically important revenue stream. The Scottish Government will continue to work in partnership with COSLA to empower councils through a new fiscal framework and increasing discretion to determine and set fees and charges locally in the coming year. We are also committed to finalising and accountability and monitoring framework to underpin the very dehouse agreement in the coming months. The Scottish Government is also committed to a fairer, more inclusive and fiscally sustainable form of local taxation. We have convened a joint working group in council tax reform, which is co-chaired by Scottish ministers and COSLA, and together we are exploring proposals for meaningful changes to be introduced to council tax. The joint working group is considering exploring a broad range of potential measures, including citizens engagement, on long-term reforms to the system. Those reforms will have a core aim of providing fairness to the system and support to those that need it the most. Bearing in mind that the overall quantum has already been confirmed when the budget bill was agreed, Opposition members should note that failure to approve the order would result in Scotland's local authorities and, as a consequence, all of our communities being deprived of over £403 million of additional funding in this financial year and almost £575 million additional Scottish Government investment next year. Anyone in this chamber who does not vote for this order is local authorities, local communities being deprived of over £403 million of additional funding in this financial year and almost £575 million additional Scottish Government investment next year. I listened closely to the remarks from Pam Gosel and I will be checking the official report to see exactly what she said and what remarks and statements she is attributing to chief executives of local authorities. I think that that will make very interesting reading in the official report. As for Mr Griffin, I find it remarkable that his party's local government spokesperson has no opinion whatsoever in whether the UK Government should be directly funding local authorities, whether the role of this Parliament should simply be cut out. I am sorry to ask for Mr Rennie to come to this chamber and to start criticising austerity when his party was the midwives of austerity. The cuts that they have inflicted upon communities across the islands, the butchery of public services, I wonder if he thinks the Fixed Term Parliament Act and the AV referendum made it all worthwhile. What a shameful contribution from Mr Rennie. This provides additional funding for local government this year and next year, and I urge members to back it at decision time. Thank you. That concludes the debate on the local government finance order. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front benches to change.