 The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the budget Scotland number 3 bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as introduced. That is Scottish Parliament bill 41, the marshaled list, the groupings of amendments. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around 5 minutes for the first division of the stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds and thereafter I'll allow voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request to speak buttons or enter in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group and members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. We move to the single group which is entitled the Scottish administration reallocation of portfolio responsibilities and associated reallocation of resources. I call amendment number one in the name of the deputy First Minister and cabinet secretary for finance grouped with amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment one and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The seven amendments proposed today simply update the bill to reflect the cabinet changes announced by the First Minister on 8 February. Specifically, they amend two of the authorised purposes for which the Scottish administration may use resources. Those are purposes 3 and 6 in schedule 1 of the bill. However, the amendments do not change the overall total of the 24-25 Scottish budget. Taken together, amendments 1 to 3 reflect the formation of the new wellbeing economy net zero and energy portfolio, which replaces the previous wellbeing economy fair work and energy portfolio. The authorised spend purposes are updated to include the non-transport spend from what was the transport net zero and just transition portfolio. As a result, the authorised budget for this new portfolio is increased by £732,755,000 to £1,985,171,000. Similarly, amendments 4 to 7 reflect the formation of the new transport portfolio, which replaces the previous transport net zero and just transition portfolio. The authorised spend purposes are updated to remove the non-transport spend, which is now included in the new wellbeing economy net zero and energy portfolio. The authorised budget for the new transport portfolio is therefore reduced by £732,755,000 to £3,705,617,000 to take account of that. I move amendment 1 and urge members to support this amendment and others in the group. Thank you, cabinet secretary. There are no further requests to speak at this point. Would you like to wind up further? I do not think that there is any need. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 2 to 7 on block. Formally moved. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 2 to 7? No. No member objects. Therefore, the question is that amendments 2 to 7 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends consideration of amendments. As members will be aware at this point in the proceedings, I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, it is my view that no provision of the budget Scotland number 3 bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Thank you. Good afternoon. The next item of business is a stage 3 debate in motion 1 to 295, in the name of Shona Robison, on budget Scotland number 3 bill. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate. Please press the request to speak buttons. I call on Shona Robison, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary, to speak to and to move the motion. Up to 15 minutes, please. Thank you. Presiding Officer, in opening today's stage 3 debate on the 2024-25 Scottish budget, I have been very direct with Parliament that this is a challenging budget requiring difficult choices. In making those choices, our priority throughout has been to protect our front-line services. This has been done in the face of the UK Government cutting Scotland's budget. Our block grant has fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since 2022-23. Our capital spending power is due to contract by almost 10 per cent in real terms over five years. That is after factoring in our borrowing powers. All told, that is a cut from Westminster to our ability to invest in infrastructure of around £1.6 billion. I appreciate that there are differing views on what this budget should support, but we cannot spend money that we do not have. If members today have alternative priorities, if they wish more investment to be made in one area, then I ask them to be straight with the people of Scotland and say what they would cut to pay for it. We are choosing to make our income tax system more progressive in order to help fund our vital front-line services. There has become something of a mantra for politicians who sit to the right of this Government that we should instead be focusing on growth, although the word growth was a panacea to cuts from the UK Government on public spending. Growth, of course, is vital, and we are investing more than £5 billion across Government to support it. That will help to create jobs and support the green economy, support businesses, aid the transition to net zero and fund almost £2.5 billion in public transport and a further £220 million in active travel to provide viable alternatives to car use in a second. We are also investing £67 million to kickstart a five-year commitment to develop Scotland's offshore wind supply chain, bringing the total Scottish public sector support for offshore wind to £87 million next year. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. If growth is so important to this Government, why are spending in the economy, fair work and energy portfolio down 8.7 per cent in real terms compared to last year? As I set out at the beginning, we have had to, because our budget has been prioritised, front-line public spending. Now, if the Tories want to disinvest in our health service— Cabinet secretary, please take a seat. I will not have this cross-bench secondary chitchat going on, whilst the cabinet secretary is on her feet. It is discourteous to the cabinet secretary. Please resume. With a reduced bloc grant, the choice is either to invest in public services or not. We have chosen to invest in our health services in local government, in fire and police. That means difficult decisions elsewhere. We have been clear with Parliament about that. Of course, our position is in contrast to the UK Government, which is paying for unsustainable tax cuts by further reducing government spending and investment into the UK economy. It is unclear to me how the UK Government intends to provide the infrastructure or investment in capital that creates long-term sustainable economic growth when it is hell bent on returning to a new age of austerity. To be clear, if you stand in this chamber today and say that the UK's income tax bans and rates should be followed here in Scotland, then, in the interests of fiscal transparency, you need to say where your hammer blow of £1.5 billion of cuts would fall. The budget changes to income tax, including the creation of the new advanced rate, will mean that only employees earning in excess of £100,000 will pay more in income-based taxes in the coming financial year than they did in this one. The contribution from our progressive tax system is supporting us to provide over half a billion pounds extra for the NHS, taking total funding for front-line health boards to £13.2 billion next year, a real-terms increase, despite a real-terms cut to the NHS in England from the Tories. I thank the Deputy First Minister for taking intervention. Is she aware of the fact that a quarter of Scotland's sight loss population living areas serve for the Princess Alexandra eye hospital and her budget effectively cancels that replacement hospital, condemning them to rely on a facility that has been designated not fit for purpose for over a decade? Surely that is not investing in front-line services. I will come back to Parliament with a revised infrastructure investment plan, but let me be clear with a reduction of £1.6 billion from our capital budget, every part of the public sector will be impacted by the UK Government's decision, which I hope is reversed when the Chancellor gets to his feet next week. We will continue to prioritise tackling poverty through investing £6.3 billion in social security benefits and payments, which is just over £1 billion more than in 2023-24. We are also proud to support pay deals for the public sector that reflect the vital jobs that they do, providing support in the face of high inflation. This year's pay deals were around £800 million greater than planned, and our total expenditure on public sector pay is now around £25 billion, over half of our fiscal resource, and on average, public sector pay in Scotland is around 6 per cent more than the rest of the UK. We intend to set out pay metrics for £24.25 after the spring budget when the fiscal outlook is updated, but I cannot stress enough the danger to Scotland's public finances from the decisions of the UK Government at the spring budget next week. We are in the absurd position of finalising our budget plans for £24.25 today when, in a week, large parts of it may be impacted by the choices of the UK Chancellor. Depending on which briefing is to be believed and which blacktop newspaper the Chancellor possibly has headroom of around £10 billion, my message to the Chancellor could not be clearer, prioritise investment in public spending and infrastructure over further tax cuts, a message echoed by the IMF, the IFS, the Resolution Foundation and others. I want to turn now to the affordable housing supply programme, rightly a topic of much interest across parties and stakeholders. Let me be clear, this is and remains a key priority for this Government. Since 2007 Scotland has seen over 40 per cent more affordable homes delivered per head of population in England and over 70 per cent more than in Wales. I was pleased to see from this morning's stats that our affordable homes increased by 7 per cent in 2022-23 compared to the year before, delivering almost 10,500 homes, the highest annual increase since the year 2000. The very difficult decision to reduce funding next year was driven by necessity rather than choice. Given the reliance on financial transaction funding for affordable housing, that has significantly been decreasing from the UK Government with a reduction of around £290 million, which is 62 per cent since 2022-23. The challenge has been compounded with the UK Government announcing in the last two weeks a further reduction of £64 million in-year financial transactions through the recent supplementary estimates. On top of that, we have the savage cut to capital budgets of £1.6 billion, all of which is impacting directly on the affordable housing budget. Despite all those challenges, we remain focused on our target of delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. To support that, we will bring forward the review scheduled for 2027-2024 and will concentrate on deliverability. Of course, housing is a key priority if any additional capital becomes available, which, as I said earlier, the Chancellor has the opportunity to do next week, and I urge him to do so. I will return to Parliament in due course to set out what the impact of the spring budget is for our spending plans, including for affordable housing. I want to turn to local government. I recognise their undeniable challenges and I thank COSLA and council leaders for the ongoing engagement on the Scottish budget. The budget delivers record funding of £14 billion for local government, which is an increased share of the discretionary budget. It is baselining almost £1 billion of funding across health, education, justice net zero and social justice, a fully funded council tax freeze, protecting up to 2 million households nationally and additional support for our island communities. The 2024-25 local government revenue settlement is already over £650 million higher than the position that was published in the resource spending review less than two years ago. However, in recognition of the representations made by COSLA, I have confirmed to COSLA my intention to prioritise additional funding to local government following the spring budget, allocating up to £62.7 million of additional funding to local government in addition to the £147 million already made available that is contingent on the freeze to the council tax. I welcome the fact that 15 of the 16 councils to have set budgets so far have confirmed the freeze and protected household budgets across their authorities, and I hope that this assurance removes the final impediment for those councils still considering their position. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking that intervention. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether she will let councils know, including Glasgow City Council, whether the development of the young workforce funding will be forthcoming before the money runs out in the 31st of March? Any further adjustments to the in-year position will be absolutely contingent on what we will learn at the spring budget next week. Frankly, we could have an improved position, but we could also have a position that is detrimental to the budget that we are discussing here today. I will look at all representations, but it has to be in the context of what the funding position is going forward. I have also listened to the case made by island authorities regarding the additional costs of delivering services to island communities, and I am keen to work with COSLA to review the effectiveness of the special island's needs allowance. In the interim, I have committed to boosting the island's cost of living fund from £1 million to £5 million to support those services. In addition to the funding that I confirmed earlier, I am also committed to increasing local empowerment and working collaboratively to reform and improve existing local fiscal levers. In the short term, the joint working group on sources of local government funding will continue to identify, explore and deliver reforms to council tax building on the progress that is already made, including exploring improvement on targeting of council tax collection and support for lower-income households. Depending on the final analysis of the recent consultation, I can also confirm our intention to extend the powers to increase council tax on second and empty homes through primary legislation. I am committed to increasing the fiscal empowerment of local government over the course of this Parliament, and we are already making good progress with the passage of the visitor levy bill. Alongside that, we will continue to explore jointly with local government how a cruise ship levy could be introduced either in that bill or through another legislative vehicle, and we are keen to explore further options brought forward by local government and other partners. In the budget statement in December, we committed to examining the scope for increased local discretion over fees and charges, one of which is related to planning and a consultation on improvement of planning services, including increased discretion over fees that will be launching tomorrow. We are always open to new proposals from local government and joint exploration of options for increasing fiscal empowerment and functional empowerment. Indeed, we are open to sensible proposals from any source, including from across this chamber, but we have also listened carefully to the ask from local government for more scope to take the steps that they believe are necessary to support their local communities' building on our commitment to support Mark Ruskell's reconsideration of the European Charter of Local Self-Government Incorporation Bill. With that in mind, I can confirm that we will now begin constructive engagement on the request to consider powers of general competence and examine whether the outcome desired could be delivered through adjustment to the general power councils already have to advance wellbeing. Any new powers must balance fiscal responsibility and risk against the potential for positive outcomes and should therefore be explored in the context of the fiscal framework that remain committed to developing with COSLA. Finally, the Scottish Government is committed to reform of the council tax, a commitment that we share with our partners in the Butehouse agreement, the Scottish Green Party and which is shared with COSLA. We have today taken forward a number of short-term reforms to council tax led by that partnership through the joint working group on council tax, which is co-chaired by COSLA and the Scottish Government. As the minister for community wealth and public finance has discussed with councillor Katie Hagman this week, I will now commit to supporting the group in their second phase of work, focused on longer-term reform and in line with the commitments that we have made in the Butehouse agreement. I hope that we will have the support also of COSLA leaders representing all parties in agreeing to this work. This will include developing and implementing plans for public engagement to help build consensus on the nature of that reform. I will provide resources appropriate to enable that work to commence in the coming financial year with a view to it concluding in 2526 and to the outcome being considered by this Parliament before the next Scottish elections. In conclusion, I have been clear about the fiscal challenge that we face as a result of the UK Government's failure to invest in public services and infrastructure. I have called on the chancellor to rectify this in his spring budget next week, and I continue to press the UK Government to increase capital funding available to Scotland. This is a budget that, in tough times, protects the vulnerable, invests in public services, grows our economy and tackles the climate emergency. I move that the Parliament agrees that the budget Scotland number 3 bill be passed. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call on Liz Smith on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives up to 11 minutes, please, Liz Smith. Thank you. Presiding Officer, if this budget process has achieved anything, it is the full exposure of the fundamental divide in Scottish politics. That divide is between those of us who believe that the policies to stimulate jobs, investment, economic growth and encourage aspiration should be the top priority. Those principally ministers in the Scottish Government and their bedfellows, the Greens, who believe that the so-called social contract between Government and the public should be the priority, because they believe that this is the best way to improve the delivery of public services and address our social ills. Liz Smith would recognise the irony of her talk about policies to stimulate economic growth when the UK Government has literally put the economy into recession. Does she not see the irony of that statement, Liz Smith? What I see the irony of, cabinet secretary, is that the Scottish Government is pretending that it is on the side of economic growth when virtually everybody in the business community, I do not know how many economic commentators have universally said that this budget is not about growth. I am grateful to Liz Smith for giving way. Do we take it from that very clear commitment that she has given that the Conservatives support growth and they are opposed to the social contract, that we will not hear any demands in her speech or from any of her colleagues on the Conservative benches for any more spending on anything that is contained in this budget? I do not think that you were listening there just now, which is most unlike you, Mr Swinney. Well, were you listening because I said very clearly about priorities, about the top priority? That does not mean to say that you are not going to agree with other things. It is the level of priorities that are the fundamental discussion in this whole budget. It is not just a policy divide, it is a philosophical divide because the debate matters, as does the future prosperity of Scotland. I want yet again to put on the record why our approach to the benches is about the priority of jobs, investment and economic growth, of reducing the tax burden, supporting local government and ensuring that there is lasting public sector reform. The cabinet secretary, various ministers and even Ross Greer in the last debate we had, have said in recent days that they have a lot of respect for Sandy Begbie, but they disagree with him when he says that the current Scottish Government tax policy is threatening to make Scotland, and I quote, a dangerous place to be rich or create wealth. The trouble for them, however, is that virtually all the people who are most likely to be able to deliver sustainable growth actually agree with Sandy Begbie. He was commenting, but yes, of course. I'm grateful for the intervention. Let's, again, use the language that's used in the rates resolution debate last week around wealth creators, those most likely to deliver sustainable growth. Could you just clarify to me, does this mean that the Conservatives' belief is that only the highest earners, only company owners and chief executives are wealth creators and not the vast majority of the rest of the workers in our economy? No, absolutely not, Mr Greer. Absolutely not, but what I am saying is that those people who are complaining the most about this budget are the very people who are the leaders of businesses and the different sectors who are able to deliver the policies that we need to supply that growth in Scotland. That's why we've had groups like the CBI, the FSB, the SRC, the Scottish Tourism Alliance, Liz Cameron in today's career and why they've been warnings from people like David Bell, David Phillips and other economic commentators. Some of who are suggesting that the tax divergence with the rest of the UK is now beyond the tipping point because that's starting to erode Scotland's competitiveness. I understand that yesterday the First Minister actually acknowledged some concern about that problem. The Scottish Government, while I suspect that it is privately increasingly concerned about the extent of the backlash, defends its tax policy on account of the desire to make the system more progressive, although, incidentally, that doesn't apply to council tax. Because, in their eyes, there is a moral argument for middle to higher earners to pay more to support public services and the so-called social contract. That might hold just a little bit more water if the public could see that their higher tax burden is delivering far better public services in health, education, transport, policing, housing, but all they have seen is cuts, especially to local government, which is obviously on the front line of public services, and a very unseemly stand-off between Scottish Government ministers and councils. I know that my colleague Pam Gozel will say more about that in her contribution. Presiding Officer, it's very clear that the public does not believe that the Scottish Government has got its priorities right, and neither does the Scottish Conservatives believe that the priorities are the right ones. For example, the cabinet secretary knows from the two meetings that I've had with her that we would not be introducing the national care service bill for two reasons. We don't believe that its structure will deliver the bill's intentions, given that there are blurred lines of accountability. And secondly, like the Finance Committee and several key stakeholders, we do not believe that it has been properly costed. That money would be better spent on helping local government to reverse some of the brutal cuts that have had to be made as a result of the persistent underfunding from the SNP. On the question of the delivery of public services, there is an extremely important debate to be had about how we make limited resources deliver better results. When we are measuring the results, we should be measuring the outcomes, not the inputs. I well remember in the education brief—I'm sure that Mr Swinney will remember that too—we had a fascinating presentation from Reform Scotland that analysed the growing amount of money that had been put into education over quite a number of years, yet standards on an international measurement were falling. I think that there are cases in the economy just now where the same is true, where putting more money into health is understandable for that reason. However, as the statistics are showing, we are not delivering better outcomes. The Institute of Physical Studies the other day was just saying that we are not seeing, for the increases that we have had in public sector salaries, increased productivity, for example. I think that they highlighted hospitals. The Scottish Government received Barnett consequentials from business rates relief for a second year in a row. Instead of passing them on to businesses in Scotland, the money went into the health budget, much to the dismay, I may say, of many in business. We saw it at the weekend, Nick Nairn commenting from hospitality. We have seen tourism, retail, leisure—all bitterly complaining about that. We disagreed with that decision, in a minute, Mr Mason. We disagreed with that decision, not just because it was a second year in a row, but at a time when we are desperate to kickstart the economy on the consumer basis, Scotland is losing out. I thank the member for giving way. I note the point that she makes. Would she accept that some businesses in the hospitality and retail sector are doing very well and it is better to target any support at those that really need it, for example the islands? Mr Mason has made that point seven times in my hearing. There are aspects of the hospitality industry where I might agree with him, but generally overall, if you listen to what the Scottish Tourism Alliance is saying, day in, day out, there are particular problems for them when it comes to the increasing tax differential. I cannot really accept that point generally. I know that the cabinet secretary did not like my number of £411 million of savings, which could have been made if we had returned to the 2016 levels that the Scottish Government promised that it would get back to in terms of the size of the public sector. We have seen a huge growth. I will take one more intervention. I have to point out that in Liz Smith's calculations, of course, the figures that she used did not mean that anyone leaving the Scottish Government would leave with absolutely no redundancy package whatsoever, so I am afraid that we cannot take those figures credibly at all. On the same token, cabinet secretary, you are well aware that, had the Scottish economy grown at the same rate as the UK economy, we would have had £6 billion extra money to spend, so, from that angle, I am not going to accept that line. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am just going to finish on a couple of things, because it is very important, I think, that we understand what it is that creates the dynamism and the aspiration and the innovation and the invention that Scotland potentially has so much to offer. At the moment, this budget has left Scottish business and industry in a state of despair, and it is as strong as that in despair. They are well aware of the difficulties that the Scottish Government is in, but they just feel that this whole budget has been anti-growth. On that basis, cabinet secretary, I leave it with you to have another think about what on earth we are going to do to try to mend the big black hole in the Scottish Government finances, but also to inspire Scotland to get the best out of everything that we should be able to do without all the barriers and hindrances that this Government has put in its place. I now call on Michael Marra on behalf of Scottish Labour up to nine minutes, please, Mr Marra. Scottish Labour is clear that this budget does not deserve the support of Parliament today. It is a chaotic and incompetent budget, and it is a budget that has been damned under scrutiny by the cross-party committees of Hollywood. It fails the Government's own tests, it betrays its own rhetoric and its own spin, it is not a budget for growth, it is not a budget for public services, and it is not a budget that fights poverty. It is a budget based on the economically and ffiscally illiterate assumption that income tax can be used to plug the hole left by the SNP's failure to grow the economy. I am referred a little bit more from that from Mr Swinney, just in the last, not at the moment, but Mr Swinney set out just a few moments ago that he seems to fail to understand that you deliver a social contract by growing the economy. The two things are not in opposition. You have to deliver the growth to deliver public services, but this is a budget that hikes taxes for nurses struggling with the mortgage while the SNP demand tax cuts for energy giants struggling with unprecedented profits numbering in the billions. It is a budget where Scots are going to pay much more and get much less in return. We know that the public finances are constrained by an economy that is not working and two Governments that have wasted billions whilst families count every pound. That is why any future Labour Government will refuse to play fast and loose with the public finances, why we will not make unfunded spending commitments and why we will open the books to put public scrutiny at the first opportunity, Presiding Officer, at should we have the chance to serve. People across Scotland continue to struggle in the shadow of the Liz trust Government that crashed the economy. We watch on in recent days agast at the car crash TV horror show of a Tory Prime Minister only 18 months ago peddling conspiracy theories on far-right platforms in front of audiences, including known Nazis. We watch on not in the least bit surprised that the current weak Tory Prime Minister can refuse to do anything about it. The sooner that this country has the chance to change for the better, it is urgent and there is only one way that we can deliver that change. The consequences of this, certainly. I commented before and I comment again that I have heard an awful lot about things that you disagree with in a budget, but I have no sense whatsoever what specifically UK Labour, of which Scottish Labour is a part, is going to do to manage things like the deficit and grow the economy. Finally, does that mean that he is in favour of increasing capital expenditure to this Government and to this Parliament to start to address some of those issues? Ms Thompson is absolutely right that we have to grow the UK economy and we have to take action to do so. I can tell you how we go about doing that. On day one of a UK Labour Government, we would deliver a new day for working people in that first 100 days, working towards it, and the First Minister mocks the very idea of putting money into people's pockets through a real living wage, of having day one rights in the workplace, banning zero-hour contracts and enhancing those pro-growth policy policies that will deliver growth for the UK economy. No, thank you, sir. The consequences of this dreadful Tory Government are written into the policies that we are debating here today, but this is an SNP book and no mistake. An epic written over 17 years, failure to reform, failure to grow, failure to be the prudence stewards of taxpayers' hard-earned money and failure to do the basic job of making the budget work. Let me give you an example of that chaos. Four times in the chamber of parliament in committee now I have asked the Deputy First Minister how much our colleges will have to spend in the coming year. That is a figure that would normally be available to the sector within 24 hours of the budget statement. Here we are 10 weeks on. Still they have no idea. The Deputy First Minister does not know because her Government does not know. Those are the colleges charged with training the next generation, needed to navigate the greatest economic transition that we have faced in half a century. They are taking applications for courses today. They do not know if they can even pay to run. That is the assessment of the SNP budget from the very top of the college sector in Scotland. I think that we have had four or five different figures. Flat cash, 8.4 per cent reduction, 4.7 per cent reduction, 1.5 per cent reduction, honestly. Pick a number, any number. No direction, no leadership, no clarity, no empathy, no solutions, no clue. It is chaos. Multi-million-pound typos, failure to provide the Scottish fiscal commission with key strategic documentation, accounting for £25 billion. A council tax freeze that the civil service was not warned of and to which the cabinet did not agree, announced before a bemused party conference by a weak First Minister in open panic following a massive by-election defeat. It is a tax policy that the Deputy First Minister has still not delivered, in which SNP councillors have unanimously demanded that not be repeated. A Government elected on a manifesto promise to recruit 3,500 additional teachers, but we now know that the SNP and Glasgow City Council alone will cut 450 teacher posts due to budget cuts visited on them by the SNP in Holyrood. The Deputy First Minister was in front of the finance committee only last week saying that maintaining teacher numbers is critical to helping kids in poverty. What's an unholy mess? It really does beg our belief. Even the things that this Government claims are its priorities, claims it's focused on, the sacred missions it manages to run into the ground. It's almost as ludicrous, almost as ludicrous, as a Prime Minister entering number 10 on a promise to grow the economy only to lead the economy into Russia's recession. Given all of that, trying to hide the whole thing is perhaps the rational decision. No wonder they are so keen to make the budget as opaque as possible, to try and hide the truth by continually failing to present coherent figures requested by the Parliament's finance committee or through their failure to provide key documentation, promise time and again, but never produced, certainly. Michael Marra's just used the word opaque. In the interests of transparency, given Michael Marra has now set out again that Labour would cut taxes, can he set out where the spending cuts will come? Because each budget has two sides that Michael Marra has been here long enough to know that. He set out the tax cut side. What about the spending side? Labour has been absolutely consistent in the view that the tax policies that this Government is pursuing in this budget are, frankly, not going to produce the growth that we need. Mr Marra, please assume you see, I will not have this. We will listen to the person who has the floor, which is Mr Marra. Please continue. What we want to see is a competent Government that doesn't waste billions of pounds, that can actually be a reasonable steward for the public finances and run those services properly. Of course, it wasn't the Labour Party, and the First Minister may want to listen to this one, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies no less, who have said that the SNP Government presented on a, quote, a seriously misleading picture of local government funding and have called out the trademark SNP spin on NHS funding, which is, of course, decreasing in real terms. And the Deputy First Minister must wish now that she could channel— Mr Patrick, Mr Marra, please continue. Thank you. The Deputy First Minister must wish that she could channel Jason Deleach and delete it all before bedtime. Competence, transparency, country before party, a Government focused on growing the economy and not saving their own skins, the least we should expect and all possible. And let us be clear, people earning £28,000 do not have the broadest shoulders. It never fails it in the days between the ends of the wages and the ends of the month. This budget does mean fewer university places, fewer college courses, fewer houses built, no new hospitals, no new health centres and NHS declining on the verge of collapse with ever greater pain on the way. We do need change and we need it now, and things can be different. We can scrap the non-dom tax status and cut wasting lists. We can reform our NHS for a better future. We can put a real windfall tax on the billions of profits of oil companies and fund lower bills and 50,000 jobs with a publicly-owned UK energy company headquartered here in Scotland. We can make work pay, scrap zero our contracts, deliver day one right to sick pay and parental leave, ban fire and rehire, working people back in charge of their own lives. We can have a responsible Government that puts country before party and will ensure value for money, value for taxpayers' money. In doing all of this, we can bring growth to an economy that two Governments have failed. The sooner we can have changed the better, the sooner we can vote for change the better and the sooner Labour can make that change the better for Scotland. The Scottish Government is reaching for more tax rises in this budget, punishing low and middle-income families through fiscal drag. It has taken a hammer to Green Renewables piggy bank. It is cutting public services for young and old alike. Why? Because SNP and Green Ministers are completely out of ideas about how to spark growth, drive innovation or enlarge the tax base sustainably. They have a habit of making costly blunders, two ferries rusting in dry dock and the botched deposit return scheme. Independence papers selling Scotland's prize seabed on the cheap and next in their sites is the clueless, billion-pound bureaucratic ministerial takeover of social care that we are set to debate this week. In every case, taxpayers and public services are expected to pay the price. This Government is out of touch. It is taking people for granted. One thing that the Government must realise is that it needs the talents of everyone to grow the economy and make our country fairer. There is an intrinsic link between the health of our people and the health of our economy. People are waiting in pain for long-overdue operations. Their conditions are worsening by the day. It can take years for people to get the mental health treatment that they desperately need, meaning that they cannot get on in life. They are now in the region of 200,000 people in Scotland out of work because of mental ill health, long Covid and long-term conditions. That is costing our economy £870 million a year, according to the think tank, our Scottish future. The longer people are out of work, the worse their prospects become. The longer they wait to be treated, the greater cost to the NHS. It is why making yet another cut to overwhelmed mental health services makes no sense whatsoever. It is why the SNP's choice to freeze all NHS building plans, a hard stop on those construction projects for two years, is so damaging. That includes the national treatment centres. They were once heralded as a cure to our waiting lists. It holds the much-needed replacement of the Belford hospital in Fort William, the upgrading and refurbishment of Caithness General alongside the Princess Alexandra hypervillian that Sarah Boyack rightly mentioned. We need to see joined-up thinking and an understanding that there is an element of spending to save here, a preventative agenda. The same can be said for the 33 per cent cut to the more homeless budget. It is totally disproportionate to the challenges that exist within the Scottish Government's own capital budget. This morning, we learned that homeless applications are at their highest level since records began in 2002, with an 8 per cent increase in children in temporary accommodation. Just look at some of the things that are being said by the housing and poverty organisations that together, Presiding Officer, wrote an excoriating letter to this Government. They said that they are perpetuating housing inequality, risks the transition to net zero and baffling in the face of spiralling homelessness, not my words. The priority that is being placed elsewhere in the budget on social security risks being undermined entirely by the myopic approach to housing. In the cost of living crisis, housing accounts for a huge proportion of household budgets and cutting housing will push more people into homelessness and precarious situations. There was an SNP manifesto commitment at the last election to hire three and a half thousand additional teachers. We heard something of that from Mr Marra and classroom assistants alongside them. However, teacher numbers have actually fallen in the two years since then. Just look at SNP Run Glasgow, where 172 teaching posts are now on the chopping block. The Scottish Times educational supplement has uncovered that that is part of a plan to cut 450 posts over three years. Across the country, we are going to see bigger class sizes and more pupils becoming disengaged or excluded from school. It is particularly devastating for those newly qualified teachers attracted to the profession by the Government's promise of work, where the plan is to lift Scottish education up. We have not got in-class support for pupils who are disappearing. Teachers dipping into their own pockets to pay for basic equipment, workloads out of control, a Government that is complacent on school violence and refusing to put any money into fixing the dangerous concrete that exists in the roofs above the heads of our pupils. Scotland has just recorded its worst-ever scores in the international education rankings, yet the SNP green budget will make significantly harder for that to turn around. There is also a real danger that the Government is on the verge of taking colleges, universities and apprenticeships for granted. We cannot allow our excellent institutions to be downgraded in the way that they are. It is a £100 million cut, which in NUS Scotland's words will mean fewer courses, fewer staff and fewer opportunities. It is going to damage key industries, experiencing skills shortages, especially in renewable technology. I cannot fathom why the SNP and green members are backing this cut. Why is there an indifference to what is going on? The budget as a whole will starve Scotland of the climate-friendly initiatives, jobs and skills that are needed to kick-start growth and compete the race for the industries of the future. Cutting drugs funding will also mean that more people will end up requiring emergency healthcare or be lost to us entirely in our spiralling drug death emergency. More education cuts will punish people, students and anyone looking to upskill and retrain for a better life for themselves and their families. If SNP and green ministers want to take credit for the extra funding being invested in pay deals and in social security, so too must they take responsibility for where there are painful cuts. We will not vote for it because people need a liberal budget that invests in local services, mental health and growing the economy. A liberal budget that enables businesses and entrepreneurs to prosper, and a liberal budget that generates the tax revenue that we need to lift up Scottish education, rescue the NHS and build more war and home. We now move to the open debate. I thank the First Minister for taking such difficult decisions in extremely challenging circumstances. That budget clearly sets out to protect our public services, with above inflation support for NHS, police, fire services and local government. I welcome additional funding for the island communities and the 50 per cent increase in investment in digital connectivity and 31 per cent in trunk road maintenance. The Scottish child payment, unique in these islands and with no equivalent likely in the rest of the UK, no matter who wins power at Westminster, rises 6.7 per cent to £26.70 per week paid to the parents of over 323,000 Scottish children, something that the Scottish Government should be proud of. Today, the Opposition parties want us to vote against that. Of course, while expenditure will increase across most portfolios, there is nothing easier for the Opposition than criticising where it is falling as, unlike the Government, it does not have to actually prioritise spending. Fearful of upsetting any potential voters or vested interests, they wish to appear all things to everyone. His committee's report decreed that the budget was, for example, the Government procrastinating on important decision making, making the point that it was failing to make strategic decisions that it needs to. Does he still agree with that point? I actually agree with that. However, what we are talking about today is the funding for the budget that is actually going to take place from April. Last year, I asked where your fully costed budget was, which you said you would bring to my office a year later. I am still waiting for it. So what we have got is not exactly the actions of a potential Government in waiting, or even a junior partner in the kind of nod-in-a-link unionist defactual coalitions that we see in Edinburgh—fife, north and south Lanarkshire, Stirling and West Lothain. In the last Parliament, Aberdeen Labour councillors were suspended for working with the Tories, such as being Labour's ideological somersault from carbonate to blerite, that Edinburgh councillors were suspended for not working with the Tories. Opposition members tearously demanding the impossibility of cutting income tax while increasing expenditure across virtually every portfolio without making the slightest effort to explain how such increase has been funded is lazy, cynical and an insult to the intelligence of the people we collectively represent. At last week's finance and public administration committee meeting, I asked the Deputy First Minister whether any opposition parties have come forward with alternative fully costed budget proposals. Her reply, there have been none. So despite all the hot air, bluff and bluster from the Tories' Labour and the Gang of Four whose name escapes me, the budget is the only game in town. Opposing it will mean less money for health and social care, less for our police and fire services and no increase in social security payments for the hundreds of thousands of our citizens who rely on them, so the opposition parties should stop posturing and get behind the budget. As we know well, Labour presidered over the financial crash at the Gannisteria under Gordon Brown and Alasdairling. The Tories gave us born again conspiracy theorist, Liz Truss and Quasie Quarteng. According to the Pensions Regulator, £425 billion was wiped from pension pots by their reckless mini-budget. To put that in perspective, that is equivalent to £34,000 for every single pensioner in the UK, and yet the Tories in this place demanded we mirror her disastrous policies. As the Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out, interest payments have rocketed. Fourteen increases in two years have not just hit mortgage payments and anyone else borrowing money to invest spend or just get by. It led to payments averaging £318 million each and every day last year on the UK's colossal £2.54 trillion debt. No wonder the UK is in recession. In Scotland's devolved budget is overshadowed by my machinations elsewhere. The chaos of two UK budgets in less than four months. Anticipating next week's spring statement, the resolution foundation warns of deep cuts to stretch public services, as Chancellor Jeremy Hunt tries desperately to find money with which to bribe voters through tax cuts. Liz Smith talked about brutal cuts to local government. Eight local authorities in England went bankrupt, including Birmingham, the biggest. Andrew Goodwin, chief UK economist at Oxford Economics, said that the problem is that this comes in the back of large real-term cuts. Efficiency savings have long since been exhausted. We are now really talking about choosing which services not to provide any more. Tory antics down south destroy any threat of credibility they have as they make hollow demands for increased spending on Scottish public services. Graham Simpson waxed lyrically about his lovin with South Lanarkshire Labour leader Joe Fagan while merely calling the £1.6 billion to Scotland's capital budget over the next years is regrettable at this stage, one debate. Cuts it mean less money for housing, cuts it mean less money for schools, cuts it mean less money for harbours, for everything that we need infrastructure for. Today, the Tories and their better-together Labour pals will vote against a fully funded council tax freeze for everyone, but oppose an income tax increase for the best-paid 5 per cent of earners. Meanwhile, there is no commitment from UK Labour and Morale of Scottish Child payment. It is now the party of unlimited bankers' bonuses, the two-child benefit cap, nuclear weapons, the house of lords, tuition fees and Brexit. At stage one of the budget bill, Michael Marra uttered not a single word of criticism of the UK Tory Government and pleased he has at least ticked that box today. Labour criticised the council tax freeze having denounced the Scottish Government last September for consulting on proposals to raise of higher-band houses. In this chamber in the 6 September Mr Marra said, why does the Government think that ordinary Scots should foot the bill? But in October, rather than Hamilton West by election, Labour made three pledges, the first being that they would stop the SNP making UK more council tax. Constructive ambiguity, they called it. That was Labour's incoherent, cynical and downright dishonest policy in Brexit. Pretend you agree with the last person that he spoke to or somehow forgetting that it's traditionally where the declines folk of other information sources and can talk to each other, but then Labour always did take the voters for mugs. The Opposition hasn't any convictions to have the courage of. The grumble present no-costed alternatives. I urge members to support the budget. Thank you Mr Gibson. I call Pam Gosel to be followed by John Mason, Ms Gosel. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'm honoured to contribute to the stage three budget debate from the Scottish Conservative benches today. Everyone recognises that the relationship between national and local government is of critical importance, especially since it is largely through local government that our public services are delivered. We all depend on that relationship to work. It needs to be built on trust and on a mutual understanding about the particular responsibilities that are accord to both levels of government. Earlier last year, there was a degree of optimism that the Verity House agreement would enshrine these principles and even more optimism when, in September 2023, the Scottish Government stated that it was looking to address the issue of multi-year budgets, which has been such a consistent ask of the local government and of third sector for a long time. How that optimism has been shattered in this 2024 budget process. First, on 17 October 2023, at the SNP conference, Humza Yousaf announced without any warning, including to most of his cabinet, that there was to be a council tax freeze. This had come about without any prior discussion with local authorities, and there was no detail about whether that freeze would be fully funded. If this development badly strained relations and threatened to undermine the Verity House agreement, worse was to come. Local authorities were left in complete limbo with regard to the financial implications of the freeze and threatened with the loss of some money if they did not agree to the freeze, which, of course, was not even within the powers of the Scottish Government. Since the end of the year until now, and unseemingly, a stand-off between national and local government has been played out in the media and in full view of the public, who do not know what to expect when their council tax bills land in their letterbox. We know via COSLA that there has been acrimonious meetings between the ministers that, on Friday 16 February, put it to the cabinet secretary—it was very blunt terms—that £147 million to fund the council tax freeze was not nearly enough. COSLA had, after all, been asking for £310 million. So much for the First Minister's claim that the council tax freeze was fully funded. The letter on 21 February is a stark admission from the Scottish Government that it was no such thing. That is no surprise to me because, in my role as local government spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives, I have taken the time out in recent months to speak to 31 out of 32 local authorities. Here is what I have been hearing. It is important that I am doing your job and you are in local government. 31 authorities. I took the time out. You can laugh about it if you are laughing at local authorities. I think that you really need to stop and listen. Maybe take a leaf out of the Scottish Conservatives' right and understand that listening to local authorities is important. Here is what I have been hearing—this one is for you. Here is what I have been hearing—that, under the current funding settlement, the three shared priorities are undeliverable. Public services are cut. Just transition to net zero, a pipe dream tackling child poverty. Well, the cabinet secretary needs to look no further than the SNP-led Glasgow City Council. Ms Gozo, please resume your seat for a wee second. I think that this is really behaviour that is not worthy of all those who are conducting such behaviour. Is this respectful to the person who has the floor? Ms Gozo, please resume. Tackling child poverty, the cabinet secretary needs to look no further. The SNP-led Glasgow City Council, which is looking to act 450 teaching posts, or the SNP-led Perth and King Ross Council, which could be forced to hike the cost of school meals, cut school days and close breakfast clubs. After speaking to 31 local authorities, it is clear that this decade's old outdated system is an urgent need of reform. Just last week, the cabinet secretary attempted to bully COSLA and all the councils in accepting their tax fees, or it would whiffle UK Government Barnett consequentials. Can you imagine the uproar from the SNP Government benches if the Westminster told the Scottish Government that they must do as they say, otherwise the Barnett consequentials would be withheld? Less than a year after that announcement of the Verity House agreement, the SNP is demolishing local democracy in front of their very own eyes. It is simply unacceptable. The SNP's gross mismanagement of the nation's finances means that we face the worst of all budgets, a combination of tax hikes for hard-working Scots and eye-watering cuts to the public services. Our approach to the budget is fundamentally and ideologically different to those on the SNP green benches. Our stance on those benches is fully in favour of sustained public sector reform, reducing the tax burden, economic growth and support for local government. The measures put forward by the Scottish Conservatives put economic growth as a top priority and provide much better support for local government. The two things that the SNP has neglected throughout their time in the office and which are also major contributors to the black hole in public finances. Thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to speak once again on the budget. I do speak in support of the Scottish budget for £24.25. As others have said, it is a very tight settlement and clearly we cannot do all that we would want. Yes, we would like to see the Scottish child payment higher, more money for affordable housing, transport, colleges and universities, local councils, preventive spending and a range of other sectors who really need the finances. However, we can only spend the money that the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast that we will have available. I thought I would use my speech today to challenge a few myths that have been circulating during the budget process. Myth number one, we can increase spending in one area without raising taxes or cutting expenditure elsewhere. No, that is not possible. The Scottish budget has to be balanced and so demands for more on the Scottish child payment or on business support or elsewhere means a cut somewhere else. Opposition parties have no credibility if they ask for more funding for COSX if they do not tell us where the money is to come from. Capital expenditure is similar. I agree that we would like to spend more on affordable housing and I think that the cabinet secretary agrees with that too, as she has said that any extra capital or FT money would go to more new homes. However, we have been forced to accept a very poor fiscal agreement. The bulk of our capital budget comes from Westminster and we only have very limited powers to borrow, so more money for housing needs to come from somewhere else like economic investment or the transport budget or elsewhere. Myth number two, growing the economy is the whole answer. We have had the suggestion from Opposition parties that only if we grew the economy some more, the public purse would automatically benefit and we would not need to raise taxes. In fact, some have argued that higher taxes are necessarily a barrier to the economy growing. However, this is flawed thinking. In the first place, it is difficult to grow the economy if there is a shortage of workers. We have a fairly static total population and an ageing population. We need more immigration to provide the bus drivers, hospitality sector staff and health workers whom we need, yet without powers over immigration or even Westminster allowing visas specifically for working in Scotland, we are really up against it. Secondly, the UK itself shows that lower taxes do not automatically mean better growth. The UK has lower taxes than a number of our neighbours, with only 38 per cent of GDP going in tax. Yet despite that, we are now into a recession with the economy contracting, so clearly there is not an immediate link between taxes and growth. Thirdly, even if the economy does grow, the question is where the benefits of that growth will go. If businesses are for and owned or based in a tax haven and if their profits increase and go overseas, there is no benefit to the Scottish budget. If already better off people just earn more and then spend that money elsewhere, again that does not benefit the public purse. So yes, I believe that we should seek to grow the economy, but as a separate albeit related exercise we also need to do more to redistribute income and wealth within Scotland. Myth number three, which is specifically a Labour myth, we can cut taxes for middle earners but not cut public services. Wrong again, that does not work. No one is saying that middle earners are rich. What we are saying is that those who can afford it, including middle earners, should pay a bit more tax so that we can all get better public services. Cutting income tax, as Labour suggests, I believe by £560 million, means cuts to vital public services. Myth number four, we can raise taxes as much as we want and introduce new taxes quickly. Now I think a lot of the STUC proposals for possible new taxes, plus revising how present taxes work are very good. But some of that will take a considerable time, that is several years, especially if we require Westminster approval in addition to our own legislative processes. So those proposals will not solve our problems for 24-25. When it comes to council tax, we need to act on a replacement or at least a major revamp. Even revaluation would not be popular among those who would lose out, yet we cannot go on much longer using 1991 property valuations. Houses in more deprived areas appear to have gone up less in value than those in richer areas, meaning that poorer tenants and residents are losing out. On raising income tax, there is no real sign as yet of behavioural change because of the slightly higher Scottish rates. We need to remember that people make decisions as to where they live and work for a range of reasons. Tax may well be one of them, but so are house prices, which are normally much lower in Scotland than in London. I would also suggest living in a more caring country where people in need are treated with more respect, for example by Social Security Scotland, than they are often by the DWP. In mentioning social security, it is worth focusing on one of the big positives of this budget. Increasing spending on social security from £5.3 billion to £6.3 billion is a real success story. I do not think that I have heard many opposition calls for that sum to be cut. Yes, we will need to carefully watch its affordability going forward, but let us be positive right now that the adult disability payment is going to a range of people who really need it and really deserve it but who would not be getting it if they lived in the rest of the UK. Overall, I would suggest that this is a pretty fair budget in the circumstances. As far as I am aware, the opposition parties have not come up with any real suggestions as to how it could be amended. The Conservatives and Labour can vote against it at decision time if they want, but I do not believe that they would do any better if they were in power, and I suspect that it would be a lot worse. 17 years of economic and financial mismanagement by the SNP have come home to roost. The scale of the SNP's financial failings are exposed in what is a deeply chaotic budget and the impact of which will be felt by generations of Scots for years to come. Slight of hand presentation cannot mask the reality that public finances are in dire straits and Scots are paying the price of SNP incompetence. Public services are at breaking point, and nowhere is this more evident than in the NHS. Do just take my word for it. The Scottish Fiscal Commission's analysis reveals that the SNP Government plans to spend less in real terms on health and social care in 2024-25 than it did in the preceding financial year. I am also old enough to remember—and I will give way on this point, because I would like to hear what the Deputy First Minister has to say. Mr Swinney is gesticulating at the chair. I am not entirely sure what he is trying to say. If he wants to say something, raise a point of order. Is that members are supposed to address each other properly in this chamber? That was failing by Jackie Baillie, who is a long-standing member in this Parliament. That is all I am gesticulating about. Thank you, Mr Swinney. I just noted, Ms Baillie. I think also we need to refer to members courteously and also, of course, through the chair. I always endeavoured to do so, Presiding Officer, and I learned everything I knew from John Swinney himself, so I am grateful to him for the reminder of behaviour. Let me say, because I am genuinely long enough in the tooth to remember, that for the last two years of a UK Labour Government, the money passed on to Scotland for the NHS when the SNP was in government was actually diverted away from the NHS by the SNP to be spent on other things. Had they not done so, the NHS would be at least £1 billion better off in the budget just now. Roll forward to 2021. The SNP's NHS recovery plan promised over £1 billion of investment to increase NHS capacity to reform the delivery of care and get everyone the treatment that they needed quickly. Humza Yousaf himself presented a flagship network of national treatment centres, at least 40,000 additional elective surgeries and 40,000 procedures per year by 2026, increasing to 50,000 in the years after. By 2026, there would be an additional 1,500 staff recruited to work in those national treatment centres. Those plans were apparently costed, they were worked out, Audit Scotland in a scathing report in October 2023 warned about delays. Now, many of those national treatment centres have been cancelled or postponed for years. The result of that incompetence is that planned operations continue to lag well behind pre-pandemic levels. 60,000 fewer operations carried out in 2023 than were performed in 2019. Those cancellations and delays are already impeding the recovery of our NHS and waiting times are getting even longer for those waiting for inpatient treatment. That is nothing less than an insult to the almost one in six Scots currently on an NHS waiting list and to the hard-working NHS staff that is simply trying to do their jobs in a system that is broken. Audit Scotland has described Scotland's NHS as directionless, risking patient safety and on the brink of breakdown. Health is fully devolved, responsibility lies with the SNP Government and I know the Deputy First Minister like the rest of this Government is at pains to blame everybody else but there comes a point when a little self-reflection is required. After 17 years in power, the SNP has left the health service at breaking point, with extreme overcouting and long waiting times threatening patient safety. Let me focus on capital. A 10 per cent cut in the capital budget for the Scottish Government over the next five years but a 100 per cent cut in the capital for new health projects. National treatment centres, critical to tackling waiting times, delayed for years, in Esher and Arran, in Lanarkshire, in Lothian, in Grampian, in Tayside, all gone, no answer as to what will happen now to tackle waiting lists. People in the highlands waiting for the redesign of Caithness General Hospital, the revamp of Rhaigmo's maternity services now parked on the shelf. Lockelli and Cincardin in Fife, the Libiton GP practice, the Gilmerton GP practice, East Calder in Lothian, Green Ferns in Aberdeen, they have all been denied desperately needed health centres. Funding pulled from the Edinburgh Eye Pavilion despite promises to the contrary. A new cancer centre in Lothian delayed too. A promise to publish the revised capital investment plan alongside the budget, broken. No transparency from the SNP, just more secrecy. So where has the capital gone? What is it being spent on? Overpriced ferries costing almost four times the original at almost £400 million and seven years late. What other capital projects are going to be cancelled or delayed? The A9, the A83, are the rest and be thankful. The reality is, Presiding Officer, we simply don't know. And the crisis in social care deepens. Care packages cut, contracts handed back, staff morale low and vacancies growing. The SNP can spin out of this any way they want, but this is a government that has lost control and is financially incapable of running the country. The real terms decline in funding to the NHS is an insult, as is the real terms cut to the social care budget and the impact will impede the recovery of our health and social care services for decades to come. SNP ministers promised patients and staff for years that they would deliver state-of-the-art national treatment centres. But despite almost 830,000 Scots on waiting lists for tests and treatments, those promises have been broken. The people of Scotland should not have to pay the price of SNP incompetence. That is why Scottish Labour cannot vote for this budget today, and it is why only Scottish Labour can be trusted to support our NHS and social care services and their dedicated staff so that they can deliver for the people of Scotland. Thank you, Ms Bailey. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, this budget is set against the backdrop of some of the toughest conditions that we have faced as a Scottish Parliament. We have had to contend that 14 years of Westminster austerity compounded by a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for, which has wiped billions from the UK economy, exacerbated by the trust-quarting many-budget disaster that further contributed to inflation rates rising and the cost of living deepening. Yet, despite being presented with a profoundly challenging financial situation, not of Scotland's making, this budget sets out to protect people, sustain public services, support a growing sustainable economy and address the climate and nature emergencies. I will be voting for the budget, but I think that we all recognise that we could spend more money on every single department, but if the money is not there. At the heart of this budget is the social contract with the people of Scotland, where those with the broader shoulders are asked to contribute a little more. It is a budget that reflects our shared values as a nation and speaks to the kind of Scotland that we actually want to be, one where everyone has access to universal services and entitlements and those in need of an extra helping hand to receive targeted additional support. The Scottish child payment is an example of this. Given the reckless economicness management and display at Westminster, it has become increasingly important to prioritise the most vital, the NHS and social security. That means supporting those on the lowest incomes, including lifting kids out of poverty, despite the Scottish budget being slashed by Westminster. I am sure that, like other members across the chamber, health is one of the key issues constituents raised with me. Although health is fully devolved, I often remind constituents that, without the full levers of power, it is misleading to treat Scotland as if we were already independent when considering how devolved areas are funded. For example, the Tories delivered a 3 per cent real terms cut to England's NHS in their autumn statement, yet the SNP and the Green Government has just increased the front-line NHS budget in real terms. That is a choice that the Scottish Government has made despite the UK Government providing less funding in this area. When we also compare Scotland's health record with that of Labour on Wales, we have got more GPs, more dentists and more qualified nurses and midwives per 100,000 people. The SNP and the Scottish Government have also protected free eye exams, whereas people in England and Wales must pay for this service. In fact, people across Scotland have reaped several benefits since the SNP came to office in 2007, including free prescriptions, free school meals, free childcare for three and four-year-olds, free bus travel for under 22s, free dental care until the age of 26, seven additional welfare benefits, including the Scottish child payment, as I have already mentioned, and publicly owned rail services. The free university tuition is also saving Scottish students thousands of pounds, but only last week Michael Marra suggested that Labour would consider reintroducing backdoor tuition fees. Michael Marra also touched upon earlier the windfall tax, but Michael Marra has to be honest with the population. The windfall taxes that he is talking about are the global profits of all the energy companies, not the profits that are solely made within the UK. Is Michael Marra suggesting that a future Labour Government, potentially and possibly later on this year, is going to attempt to charge a windfall tax on the profits that are made in France or elsewhere? If he wants to answer that, he will take his intervention. I appreciate the member giving way. What Labour is proposing is a real windfall tax that is going to pay for a green prosperity plan that has delivered 50,000 jobs in Scotland, including a publicly owned energy generation company headquartered in Scotland. Those are the kind of transformation projects that it takes for taxing the energy companies, whilst this Government appears to believe that somebody with £28,000 has the broad shoulders and should pay the costs. Michael Marra did not answer the question that I posed to him. The question was about the global profits, not the profits solely made within the UK. Although Labour likes to think that they know better when it comes to the interests of the people of Scotland, their rhetoric, as we have already just heard there, says it all. We also read in the Green Telegraph last week that Jackie Baillie called for the ring fencing funding to be given to the treatment of long Covid patients. Although I also want to see more money being spent supporting people suffering from long Covid, I found it strange at Ms Baillie sought for the Barnett consequentials to be a ring fence for long Covid when her party is so vehemently against any sort of ring fencing. I think that this shows how the argument can change depending on the politics to be used, Ms Baillie. As with almost every other budget process, local government finances focus is a focus for Labour, who, year upon year, shout about cuts, yet never want to accept that Scotland's budget has been reduced by the Tory incentive budgets for the last 14 years. Budgets are about choices. I am pleased that the finance secretary is providing additional resources for local government. It is now a choice for local councils as to whether they implement the fully funded council tax freeze or place an additional burden on households. Inverclyde, Labour council group wants to introduce a two-year budget that will see the council tax increase by 8.2 per cent next year and then a further 6 per cent the year after. In contrast, the SNP council group has proposed a one-year budget that implements a council tax freeze, keeping more money in my constituent's pockets. It is interesting that Inverclyde Labour is proposing a two-year budget when, surely if Sir Keir Starmer wins the next general election, they would expect him, I would imagine, to give Scotland more money. Clearly, they do not believe that that is going to happen and we have heard nothing out of that this afternoon. I will be supporting this budget today, but I think that, like everyone across the chamber, I would like to see more money being invested in every area, but that is only possible with independence with Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In late January, the Minister for Small Business, Richard Lockhead, intervened on me, asking for my help to suggest where this Government could increase its budget. In response, I offered he should cut the waste and grow the economy. My second point is illustrated by ONS figures, showing that Scotland would have an extra £6 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years if our economy grew at the same rate as the rest of the United Kingdom. However, it will not. PWC data forecasts Scotland to have the fourth lowest GDP growth of any UK region in 2024. What concerns me the most is that what this budget makes abundantly clear is that this Government has no strategy to grow the economy. I shall in a minute, Mr Allan. Specifically, the short-termist and blinkered decisions being taken around what a recent Scotsman editorial called the fundamental building block upon which everything else depends—education and skills. I am interested in the theory that there are policies that a devolved Scottish Government could pursue that would release the untold billions that he mentions in terms of the products of economic growth. I would be grateful if you could explain to me how this is possible, given that VAT and corporation tax and most of the extra taxes that such businesses would pay all go to the United Kingdom Government. Liam Kerr. We can talk about this bold business bonus, we can talk about income tax. There are innumerable ways that have been articulated throughout the afternoon. If the member cares to listen, I will give him some more, because a proper strategy and by extension proper budget to grow the economy would look at how we get people into that economy, with the skills they need and the qualifications employers require. John Mason actually said it is difficult to grow the economy if there is a shortage of skilled workers. For once, uniquely, he is right. You do not get those workers by cutting the economy budget by £97 million, the enterprise budget by £62 million, but the employability by £30 million. You certainly do not do it by axing the flexible workforce development fund, perhaps in a minute, Mr Mason, which, according to the CIPD, is one of the key interventions in the upskilling space as well as a unique offer for Scottish apprenticeship levy payers. It is also particularly surprising that, given an independent evaluation, unequivalent can be recommended its continuation. Can we have Marie Todd's microphone, please? Does the member think that it will attract people to work in our social care system? The UK Government creates a hostile environment, which says very clearly that they are welcome to come and look after our most vulnerable people, but their families are not welcome in the UK, which is exactly what the UK Government has done. We need immigration as well as growth. I am grateful for the member giving a speech in the middle of my contribution. My points are about upskilling the Scottish economy, and you do not do that by slashing funding to the Scottish funding council by more than £141 million. Our higher education sector is already struggling, and what it really does not need is a budget that the IFS says brings cash cuts of almost 6 per cent to resource budgets, a £28.5 million cut to teaching grants, which means that, as we heard, 1,200 places at least cut for Scottish students. Bear in mind that supply of talent to grow our economy will also come from the further education sector, a sector in which the SFC reports two-thirds of colleges are already facing a budget deficit, in which the Auditor General recently warned about sustainability, yet this budget sets out a funding reduction of £33 million in revenue funding, which colleges are warning might lead to a reduction in places, further limiting the future supply of skilled entrants. Given that we have seen the number of college students falling by over 140,000 since the SMP came to power, this is a staggering lack of planning by this Government. Make no mistake, this is not just about young people. The SMP Government's own adult learning strategy found over 300,000 Scottish adults have low or no qualifications, and almost 2 million Scottish adults have low numeracy skills. The budget's response cut lifelong learning funding by almost £24 million. Never forget last year that there were more than 350 fewer science teachers, 300 fewer maths teachers and 180 fewer computer science teachers than there were in 2008. When a Scottish Government document out today shows the number of pupils leaving school with no qualifications, it is at a 13-year high. I will not be voting for this budget today, as it is put together without any form of strategic plan. By a cabal of ministers, several of whom have been out of the economy for so long, if indeed they were ever in it, that they clearly either do not understand how to grow it or perhaps are just economically illiterate, or I dare say both. Presiding Officer, this Government's budget is making the wrong choices for Scotland, preferring short-termism, diversion and grievance over coherent, cogent, competent strategic policymaking, and I will vote against it. Thank you Mr Kerr. Just to advise the chamber, there is no time in hand and the interventions will need to be accommodated in the timing allocation, I call Ivan McKee to be followed by Mark Griffin up to six minutes. It is a real pleasure to speak in today's debate, possibly arguably the most important debate of the year, because the budget is not just about getting the numbers to add up that the Deputy First Minister has so clearly outlined. It also sets out the Government's values, approach and priorities, which is hugely important. In the context, we need to recognise and appreciate the UK Government's fiscal context, the drag of Brexit pulling down our economy, the fallout from the Trusonomics disastrous experiment that we are still living with and we see that in the numbers that the Deputy First Minister has laid out today. That is not going to get any easier. UK Labour rapidly backpeddling on their commitments, be it on green investment or on support for social security payments. Those values are something that we should be proud of, that social contract between the Government of Scotland and the people of Scotland, the provision of those universal services and the principle that those who can afford to pay more should do so. I just want to list those, because sometimes we forget about free tuition fees, free prescription, free travel for under 22s, school meals, childcare, dental services for under 26s and, of course, the Scottish child payment among many more. We should be proud of the work that the Scottish Government has done to embed that social contract and its acceptance by the people of Scotland. Part of that social contract needs to be to continue to ensure that we have got excellent delivery of those services and that we spend that money, taxpayers' money, as effectively and as efficiently as possible. I just want to focus on brief comments, very briefly, so I don't have much time. Brian Whittle, very grateful for giving way. It's all very well having free dental care up to the age of 26, but if you can't access NHS dental services, because it's not financially viable for the dentist, you can't access NHS treatment and you can't access the legal service. That's an inequality directly responsibility of this Government. Ivan McKee. I think that the member will find that if he looks at the comparable data for the rest of the UK, the Scottish Government is in a better job in all of those regards than the UK Government is. It's also important to focus on how we strengthen that social contract and how we maximise the funds available to support front-line services, because the importance of the economy and the Scottish Government absolutely recognise that to delivering on that expanding tax base is essential to funding that social contract. The first thing I want to talk about is how we broaden that tax base, ensuring that more taxpayers are paying more tax, with more higher-rate taxpayers in Scotland. We all agree with that progressive principle, but it's hugely important to understand where we are in that regard and to monitor to ensure that the policies that we are executing deliver more revenue and not less, understanding the percentage of revenue that is lost due to behavioural changes, both in terms of the Scottish Fiscal Commission's theoretical calculations but also in terms of understanding what's happening in reality. We know that more people are moving to Scotland from the rest of the UK than are moving in the other direction. We need to continue to monitor that very closely, but I look forward with interest to the HMRC's longitudinal data that I believe will be published shortly that will track Scottish taxpayers and how they move and UK taxpayers how they move to understand in more detail the effect of those tax changes that we have that have been rolled out over the last few years and also to understand the multiplier effect because it's not just about tax revenue, it's about what money is spent within the broader economy as a consequence. The second point that I want to mention is about broadening the types of tax and it's important that we recognise that we need to move beyond income tax and understand what needs to happen in a coherent policy around property taxes. I welcome very much the cabinet secretary's Deputy First Minister's commitment on taking this work forward to review those taxes, those property taxes and putting a more progressive proportionate tax as a consequence and also the commitment to work towards more decentralisation, in particular the general power of competence to give councils more power to address broader issues. I'll give way to Daniel Johnson very briefly. I'm very grateful. Given that one of those measures raises just £7 million, can I just draw the member act and just ask, as he's suggesting that that needs to be reviewed in terms of the two income tax measures that the Government has set out? It's very clear in what I said, it's important to continue to monitor the percentage of behavioural change and if measures lead to a position where we're receiving less revenues as a consequence and the data shows that then of course it doesn't make economic sense or sense in terms of funding of public services if those measures raise less revenue. He knows the SFC numbers as well as I do and we both look forward to seeing future data as I'm sure the Government does from HMRC. The next point I want to mention is roundabout spend because I think it's important and a lot of numbers are thrown about about different portfolio spends. I think it's really important to go below the bonnet on this and understand below those headline numbers how effective that spend is. Christy gives us the road map and the underlying principles to take forward that work to understand how effective and efficiently that money is spent within each portfolio and what the opportunities are for removal of duplication and more effective and efficient public service delivery. The public sector reform agenda needs to pick up pace and I look forward to seeing that taken forward with clear metrics around what we're measuring and comparisons across different organisations of 129 of Scottish Government agencies and non-departmental public bodies. The spend details between how much is spent in the back office versus the front line, that data is hugely important for each one of those bodies. It's important that we understand the delivery of funding streams to make those a streamlined and as efficient as possible. The state strategy that we have spoken about is much more besides that. In conclusion, what's really important, and it's been raised by a number of members, is to recognise the lack of powers that this Parliament and this Government have. The economic levers around company law and company tax, the levers around employment law to drive up low wages, something that the Labour Party has refused to support being delegated to the Scottish Parliament. The lack of borrowing powers because Scotland needs to have those powers like a normal independent country and with only those full powers of independence can deliver on the potential of the Scottish economy. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr McKee. Mark Griffin to be followed by John Swinney up to six minutes, Mr Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I draw members' attention to my register of interest, which shows that I was the owner of a private rented property in the North Lanarkshire Council area until July last year. Presiding Officer, this has been an entirely chaotic budget, one that will send the House of Emergency spiralling and has surely put the final nail in the coffin of the Verity House agreement. Working people will pay more and get less, the 10,000 children trapped in temporary accommodation will continue to be stuck there and the Government has finally admitted what we all knew that the council tax freeze is underfunded. The Government has used Barnett consequentials, which arise from money allocated to local Government in England, to restore the previous cut to councils budgets. It is particularly calling, essentially using councils on money to plug government cuts. The finance secretary said that the budget was built on our values of equality, opportunity and community. There is an overused quote when it comes to budget times. That is, do not tell me what you value, show me your budget and I will tell you what you value. The shelter has come to the assessment of the Government's budget and has been clear what they think the Government value. In their intervention, it is possibly being the most devastating response to a budget in all of my time in Parliament. They have made clear what they think of the Government's values. They said that the finance secretary calls this a values-led budget. Those values now include increasing homelessness. How any Government could receive such a damning critique from experts dealing with homelessness and just carry on without making any changes is astounding. To cut £200 million and pretend that the 110,000 affordable homes will still be built has been described this morning by Shelter as gaslighting of homeless people by this Government. I am grateful to Mr Griffin for taking the intervention. I will pose the same question that I did in two weeks ago and I hope that the Labour Party has considered it since then. The Scottish Government is facing a £485 million real-terms cut to its capital budget this year. Once you take out what is legally and contractually obliged and what is safety critical, you are left with almost no options to balance the capital budget. So how would the Labour Party have done it instead of this? Nobody claims that this is a good decision. Mr Griffin made the same intervention a number of weeks ago. It makes the mistake in thinking that this is somehow day one, year one of an SNP Government budget. This is 17 years in the making. This Government is reaping what it has sown in its wasteful spending. I am sorry, Mr Griffin. I do not have time. It is wasteful spending. It is absolute failure to grow the economy. That is something that is not coming to just in this year. That is something that has been arrived at over a number of years. Again, I made to Mr Griffin a number of weeks ago as well. We are not coming to this chamber asking the Government to fund new commitments. We are simply asking the Government to meet its commitments. It promised the people of Scotland that they would build 110,000 affordable homes and are cutting £200 million from the budget to do that. That is their failure, not this Parliament's. Finally, I think that you have to realise that the reason that the Government is in this mess in the first place is because the First Minister felt the need to stand up in front of the SNP conference and make £500 million of unfunded promises to get through its first conference speech. It is clear where the fault lies when it comes to this budget, and it is clear to everyone outside the chamber, as well as inside. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Homes for Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Shelter Scotland crisis, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, all speaking jointly openly on the front page of the daily record on the eve of this debate and vote to set out the incredible damage that this values-led budget will do. Independent research shows that 693,000 households have some form of unmet housing need. UGF Poland shows that 80 per cent of the country think that we are in a housing crisis. 250,000 people on social housing waiting lists. 30,000 people homeless. 10,000 children in temporary accommodation. In that context, to take a 4 per cent cut to the capital budget and end up with a figure six times higher in housing is simply malicious. A hammered load to the housing sector will push homelessness and a housing emergency in the wrong direction. It is no wonder that those in the housing sector think that the Government promise to deliver 110,000 affordable homes has gone with the review of the scheme being brought forward at a tacit admission of failure. It is the children in temporary accommodation. It is the first time buyers. It is the workers building the homes. It is the sons, daughters, friends and families overcrowded and unable to buy somewhere of their own, stuck in unfit homes or on waiting lists. Working people, paying more but getting less. All abandoned by this budget, which Parliament should reject. This budget takes place at a time of enormous fiscal challenge for the Scottish Government in dealing with the cumulative impact of 14 years of austerity, the unwanted Brexit process, rampant inflation and increased borrowing costs. Some of those factors are a product of the problems on the international stage, especially the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the conflicts in the Middle East. Most of them are a direct product of the deliberate policy and financial choices of the United Kingdom Conservative Government. That context forces this Parliament to address some acute financial and policy issues, and the Scottish Government has been prepared to do that. The Government's priorities in the budget of equality, opportunity and community deserve our support. Equality, tackling poverty and protecting people from harm is ably demonstrated by the commitment to the Scottish child payment, which is lifting children out of poverty. Opportunity, building a fair and sustainable and growing economy, with, crucially, Scotland's wealth per head having increased by 10 per cent since 2007 compared to 6.4 per cent in the United Kingdom. Community, delivering efficient and effective public services with greater investment in NHS recovery, would have been the case if Scotland had followed policy in the United Kingdom. Despite the prevailing economic and fiscal conditions, the Scottish Government has taken decisions to expand the resources available to Parliament to spend. This has meant that Parliament is able to invest in the social contract that is so vital to people in Scotland. The existence of free access to higher education is an important part of that contract. So is access to 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare, more than double what was in offer when we came to office in 2007. The maintenance of free personal care for the elderly is a policy choice that has got to be paid for, as has the availability of concessory bus travel for over 60s now extended to young people under the age of 22. On that respect, I met some pupils yesterday at Perth grammar school who explained to me the significant increase in the opportunities available to them to participate in society as a result of the policy innovation that this Government has taken forward. Those choices are only available because the Scottish Government is prepared to take the financial decisions to make them possible. Some of those financial decisions have involved being prepared to take over a number of years a progressive approach to taxation, and I commend the Government for doing that. One of the acute challenges in this budget is the capital programme. The UK Government plans to reduce capital funding in real terms for Scotland by 10 per cent over the next five years. That is a very short-sighted policy approach that does not recognise the need for sustained investment to support long-term competitiveness. It also takes place at a time when the value of capital budgets has been eroded by soaring inflation. Private sector organisations tell me that their construction costs have risen in the last two years by 30 to 50 per cent. If that has happened in the private sector, why on earth does Parliament not believe that it is also happening in the public sector? To answer Jackie Baillie's question about where the money has gone, the money for capital projects has been eroded, eaten up by inflation, which has been allowed to go rampant by the Conservative Government. The Government has a commendable record on capital investment, with the successful completion of the Queensferry crossing, the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the M8, the M80, the M74, the Borders railway, the Airdrie to Bathgate line. On average, Mr Griffin, the Scottish Government has built more social houses per annum than the previous Labour and Liberal executive managed to do. I look forward to this budget continuing to support the dualling of the A9, a project on which the Government has already embarked and is committed to completing. I have listened with Liz Smith. Mr Swinney has just drilled off some of the Scottish Government's successes in capital spend. Does he also acknowledge that there have been a huge category of failures because of the waste that the Scottish Government engaged in in several really big commitments, whether that is in the ferries or by-fab or a whole range of things? Had those been successful, we would have had an awful lot more money in this budget. There will be capital projects that will get into difficulty, such as UK Government frigates, such as aircraft carriers, such as HSS2 squandering money left, right and centre, that Tories have not got a leg to stand on on public finance management on capital projects, which brings me neatly to where I intended to end on the opposition. If the Conservatives' plans were followed here, we would have to take £1.5 billion out of this budget. If Labour plans were followed, we would have to take £561 million out of the budget. I wish I had some of the brass neck of the Conservatives to come here and lecture us about the public finances when every one of them sitting on that front bench, Liz Smith, Murdo Fraser, Liam Kerr, all told us to do what Liz Truss did in wrecking the United Kingdom economy and public finances. I wish I had a smidgen of the brass neck of that crowd, and in the tradition of empty, vacuous speeches from the Labour Party, high on rhetoric and devoid of choices, Mr Marra has truly excelled himself today, competed with only perhaps by the vacuous speech of Jackie Baillie. This is a budget undertaken in difficult circumstances, but, despite the gravity of that challenge, it delivers formidable benefits to the people of Scotland. I urge Parliament to support the Government in its efforts to deliver equality, opportunity and community in line with the values of the people of Scotland. I now call Ross Greer to be followed by Jackie Dunbar up to six minutes. It has been said already that there has never been a more difficult context in which to set a Scottish budget, a £1.5 billion gap going in, which would have been a £3 billion gap if we had followed the tax policies set by the Conservatives and Parliament had rejected the tax policies that were championed by the Greens over recent years. A huge cut to the capital budget, almost £1.5 billion in one year and £1.5 billion over the remainder of the capital spending cycle. Despite those challenges, the budget reflects green values. It puts people and planet first, and it is honest about the need to redistribute wealth to deliver on those ambitions. The contrast could not be sharper. We heard earlier this month that this planet has hit 1.5 degrees of global warming. That is catastrophic. We have a UK Government ditching its climate action, approving more oil and gas licences, a Labour opposition ditching their UK-wide £28 billion green spending commitment and comparing that to the £4.7 billion in this budget for climate and nature, securing Scotland and our planet's future, taking action now to tackle the climate crisis and restore our natural world and creating jobs for the future, not at this point, Mr Marra. I want to repeat a quote from Francis Azuzka, who is the chief executive of NatureScotch, who said this to the finance committee of Parliament. I see in the budget a shift towards recognising the long-term challenges of climate change. What the Scottish Government is doing is working. We saw that in the Fraser of Allander report that was published just a few weeks ago from 27,000 to 42,000 jobs in just one year in the renewables sector. That budget includes £67 million for the offshore wind supply chain, doubling down on that key sector. We cannot prioritise everything, we cannot prioritise every sector, but this money shows that the Scottish Government is investing in green growth in the sectors that will really reward us for years to come. We need to ensure the best value for money in our spending. That is about setting higher, stricter conditions on the money that goes from the public to the private and third sectors. When Ivan McKee was the business minister, he made a lot of progress on applying real living wage conditions to grants and contracts issued by the Government. That was a great move, but we need to move forward. That budget includes a commitment to move towards disqualifying companies who use unpaid trial shifts from those grants and contracts. We can go further again. We can apply that not just to grants and contracts, but to all money that moves from the public to the private sector. Bus companies, for example, would be an obvious area in which to do that. We can strengthen fair work commitments. What that means is that we move away from the somewhat abstract concept of workers' voice towards making it clear that the Government expects any company in receipt of a grant or contract to recognise trade unions. That is important for making progress on things such as our child poverty targets when funding is limited. To touch on the council tax freeze, it is clearly not what the Greens would have chosen. It cannot happen again, but we are not voting down a budget with £4.7 billion for climate and nature and £6 billion for social security, because we are unhappy with one policy. I welcome the Deputy First Minister's commitment this afternoon of the next steps on council finance reform. More than doubling council tax on second and holiday homes will raise not just more revenue but free up more housing. The power of general competence is an incredibly important point. I really welcome the commitment to explore that. I think that that would live up to the value in the Verity House agreement of local by default national by agreement if we were to empower councils in that way. I should say that the Greens do not want an English-style general power of competence, which does not allow councils to create their own taxes and levies, but does allow them to make the kind of dodgy investments that have seen councils like FANET financially catastrophise. That cannot be where we end up, but the general power of competence is a huge opportunity. It will build on the commitments already made for a visitor levy, a cruise ship levy, a carbon emission land tax, the progress already made on doubling council tax on holiday homes, the infrastructure levy and the public health levy that is mentioned here is a commitment to explore. That one in particular is important, because I do not think that the general public want to see supermarkets pocketing the profits for many increase in minimum unit pricing. That money should be reinvested in our health service. I am proud that, despite inflation and cuts, we are funding essential services from progressive taxation. I understand Conservative opposition to those tax policies. That is in line with their economic philosophy. I accept that Liz Smith put forward an alternative saving option in the national care service. The problem is that Graham Simpson in his stage 1 speech spent that many times over. Never mind what Conservative colleagues have said this afternoon. Again, it is the Labour Party that are not surprising, but certainly disappointing the rest of us on the left of the spectrum by mimicking Tory tax policy, opposing not just their own manifesto, but their own votes in this Parliament for previous rates resolutions. I really felt for Michael Marra today his script is clearly being written for him in London, because for years we have asked what Scottish Labour's budget policies actually are. Today, Mr Marra told us, Scottish Labour's alternative to this budget is to sit tight and just wait for England to start voting for the Labour Party. It is an admirable sales pitch for their general election manifesto, but as he is fond of reminding us, this is the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Labour Party were in charge, clearly the 90,000 children lifted out of poverty this year by this Government's policies would still be waiting. That is a total lack of ambition for Scotland. We saw that. We saw how Scottish Labour are not in charge of their own policy with the removal of the reference to collective punishment from that common ceasefire debate last week, but it could not have been symbolised by anything more than the Labour Party confirming that, if they win the next general election, they will lift the cap on bankers' bonuses, but they will not be lifting the two-child limit on child benefit. This is a budget with green values at its heart. Canceling school meals day, expanding free school meals to 20,000 more children, that record £4.7 billion for climate and nature, creating jobs in the green industries of the future, and it is funded by the redistribution of wealth from those at the top to the most vulnerable in our society and to the public services who need it. That is why the Scottish Greens will be voting for this budget today. Thank you. I now call Jackie Dunbar to be full by after again up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to speak in support of this budget. It's a difficult time. The years of Tory austerity have taken their toll on this budget, as has the sky-high inflation of recent years, which means that the money that we are allocating is stretched much more than it might have been. That's before you factor in how things have been made worse by Brexit and by nearly every single one of Liz Truss's 50 days as Prime Minister. In short, times are tough. That doesn't just stand true for the Scottish Parliament's budget. It is the same for household budgets right across this country. In these difficult financial times, I believe that this budget delivers. It delivers significant investment for our public services. It delivers support for Scotland's growing economy. It delivers on tackling the climate emergency. It delivers and protects our most vulnerable from the full force of Tory austerity. I am proud that this SNP Scottish Government is refusing to follow Westminster's austerity agenda, and instead, with the limited powers of devolution, it is using this budget to mitigate some of the worst of Tory cuts, including the continued mitigation of the bedroom tax, and is investing in tackling inequality and investing in our future, such as through the record investment in social security. The Scottish Government is unashamedly targeting resources at those most in need. Since 2007, where devolution was allowed, we have made a range of choices in this Parliament that has made things a little easier than elsewhere in the UK. It was under an SNP Government that a decision was made to stop taxing folk for being sick. That means that prescriptions in Scotland are free, saving folk £9.65 for every prescription that they need to pick up. The same goes for eye tests, with folk saving £25 every time they need to get their eyes tested. It was under an SNP Government that a decision was made that university education should be free. That means that backdoor tuition fees, graduate endowments, were scrapped, and university tuition has remained free in Scotland while it is soared to up to £9,250 a year in England. It was an SNP Government that made a decision to invest in Scotland's future and give our young folk the best possible start in life. That has meant that we are all well ahead of the rest of the UK in the provision of universal funded childcare. It means that the game change in Scottish child payment, which is now going up to a record £26.70 a week, is £26.70 more than anywhere else in the UK, which will benefit over £327,000 under 16s. It means that every baby born in Scotland is supported with the contents of a baby box, with a range of essentials to support a baby's first six months. The accumulation of those decisions has added up, and they are making a positive difference to folk right across Scotland. It means that, on average, people are spending £37 a year less on their water bills than in Tory-controlled England. It means that households are paying an average of £648 less council tax than in a Tory-run England. It means that more investment in education with £305 more per person being spent. It means that more investment in transport with £234 more per person being spent, £87 more per person on police, public order and safety, £294 more per person on housing and community immunity, £86 more per person on environmental protection, £75 more per person on agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and £124 more per person on enterprise and economic development. In practice, that means that, per head of population, Scotland has more police officers, more prison staff, more firefighters, more nurses and midwives, more hospital consultants, more GPs, more dentists, more in-edge staff overall, more teachers and more schools. All of that has been achieved without the full range of powers that the Tories have at Westminster. It has been achieved despite so many of the obstacles that the Tories have thrown in our way—austerity, Brexit and Liz Truss. That is before you even touch on the billions being spent on Trident. Billions disappearing on Covid cronies and contracts. Millions being spent on unelected lords. Billions on nuclear power plants at the expense of investing in a just transition for the north-east of Scotland. What a contrast with what we have in front of us today. At the heart of this SNP budget is our social contract with the folk of Scotland. For 17 years, the SNP has delivered for the folk of Scotland. It has made life better for them, and the budget is no different, but it is still only doing a fraction of the good that it could be. It is only with the full powers of independence that Scotland can escape Westminster austerity for good, invest in our future properly and realise our full potential. Whatever resources and powers we have, that social contract with the folk of Scotland will be honoured to the best of this Government's ability. The budget exemplifies the failure of Scotland by two Governments. Scotland, as a mid-sized European nation, is abundant in both natural resources and human talent, should be thriving for all our citizens. Here we are again in this Parliament voting on a budget that fails to even attempt to weave a Scottish silk purse from the pegs ear of Brexit Britain. I am sympathetic to the Scottish Government's difficult position as junior partners in the flawed fiscal framework, but my sympathy will run out if the only response to the poor budgetary cards that have been dealt with is hand-ringing and finger-pointing instead of substantive action on the delivery of the core mission that they were elected on. Scotland deserves better than a spiral of downstream cuts to public services, and we deserve better than a slashed capital budget, where critical investment in infrastructure is hamstrung by decisions made in Westminster. Our constituents deserve honesty in forecasting matters important to their lives, whether it is ASN school provisions or affordable homes, not continuing a pattern of delayed disappointment. In 2024, thousands of Scots are still being failed in their basic need for a home of their own. Many children are being raised in temporary accommodation due to a lack of social housing across Scotland, and the current desperate situation is not a blip but a direction of travel. Proactive planning must replace reactive managed decline to tackle the challenges of an inadequate supply of homes and unlock the significant economic opportunities of building and sustaining communities across Scotland. We cannot afford not to act. The downstream consequences of insecure housing and homelessness are devastating to lives, to our society and also to the economy, exacerbating challenges to the sustained provision of health, education and welfare. However, the brutal cut of £205 million in real terms to the affordable housing supply programme budget makes the current target to complete 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 increasingly unrealistic. Soaring build costs and supply chain delays have seen house builders go out of business in a climate of housing shortage. The reality is that the affordable housing budget, even as it stands, will now buy less than it could at the beginning of the parliamentary session. The Scottish Government cannot continue to fall back on its previous successful track record on housing. The recent Surveysian poll, commissioned by True North, found that 74 per cent of Scots believe that we are experiencing a housing crisis. The Scottish Government is right to blame the disastrous impact of Brexit on construction supply chain issues, labour shortages and the inflationary pressures that are being driven by UK Government financial mismanagement. Yet, eight years on, we were dragged out of the EU against our will. Scotland has not yet had the right to choose, and Scotland's future is not in Scotland's hands. Campaign slogans fade, leaving the reality of managing the consequences across all sectors of our society. The time for hollow words is over. The people of Scotland deserve clarity and transparency from both Governments to enable them to plan their lives for security, and our country's vast resources must benefit the common wheel if not to be stuck in an ever-decreasing cycle of pulling our people out of the river. It is time that the Scottish Government go upstream and tackle why it keeps falling in. The Government must publish the promised revised capital spending plan, considering both inflation and the reduced capital funding from the UK Government, and, given that this is the second year in a row that the budget has been cut, coupled with increasing concerns across the sector as to the viability of this target, we need an annual tracking commitment from the Government to present clarity. That is not to manage disappointment of failed targets, but to address those threats to delivery head-on, allowing plans to pivot where required and to halt that impending housing crisis with real ambition for Scots. Thank you. I now call the final speaker in the open debate. Keith Brown, up to six minutes please. I should say from the start that I believe that this is a good budget constructed in very difficult circumstances. I like the fact that it supports our public services, that it has social justice at its heart and that it protects the NHS, is the best-performing NHS in the UK. However, a number of the speeches that it has had have had comparisons from both Conservatives and Labour, comparisons with previous Tory Governments and with prospective Labour Governments in future. First of all, the Tories, first of all, Liz Smith told us that there wasn't sufficient support for business. This is from the party that said virtually nothing in Scotland about the effects of Brexit on the Scottish economy and on business. If you are going to quite rightly listen to what business says about this budget, I do not deny that that should not be done. Why did he not listen to business when he told you about the concerns about Brexit, a far greater impact on business in Scotland? Or is it the case that you share the same attitude towards business as Boris Johnson? I cannot actually use the word that he said that he would do to business, although I can say to the chamber that it starts with an F. That was the Tory approach to business. We should also say that we have, of course, as we mentioned by many people, allegations of financial mismanagement or a budgeting crisis. This is from the party that sees us without £2.65 trillion in debt, the highest ever level of debt, the highest ever tax burden since the Second World War, the highest tax burden from a Tory Government. We have also seen, as John Swinney mentioned, the effects of inflation. I will do yes if you agree. I am grateful to Mr Brown for giving way. I wonder if he has never reflected on the comments of the Scottish Government's own economic advice to Professor Mark Blyth of Brown University, who said that independence would be Brexit times 10. How can he come with a straight face and talk about Brexit and not realise that independence would many, many times work? Keith Brown? First of all, I do not agree with that statement. Of course, it is no way of knowing what it is based on. Of course, the idea that an independent Scotland could not construct a better future than £2.65 trillion in debt or the massive tax burden that the Tories have given us is, in my view, for the birds. It is also true that, of course, we have had 14 years of Tory austerity, building on the previous Labour Government's start to austerity way back in 2008 and 2009. That has had a huge impact on our public services. We have to consider what the impact on the Scottish taxpayer is. The Scottish taxpayer, for example, is currently contributing towards the AJAX tax programme. It was meant to cost £5.5 billion and produced 589 tanks by 2017. We have only had 44 tanks. The tanks are meant to cost £9 million each. The current cost is £90 million each, and that is seven years late. That is the level of Tory mismanagement of the economy and the impact on the Scottish taxpayer. We have also seen the idea that the passage without comment that the Tory Government has now said that we cannot have care workers coming to this country, as Marie Todd said, because their families can't come. Not a word of criticism from the Tory MSPs who have failed to criticise any action of the UK Government. Really, there is another path for them. Why can't they just say that it is wrong for the UK Government to cut our capital budget if they really believed in the support for business? Why can't they do that? What prevents them from doing that? Tory MSPs could do a lot more in terms of standing up for Scotland, adding their voice to the case for Scotland. My goodness. Jackie Baillie mentioned the last period of the last Labour Government. We all know the last words of the last Labour Government. There is no money left. They started their austerity. No, Jackie Baillie wouldn't take an intervention for me. She wouldn't take one from me and I'll not be taking one from her. Of course, what Labour did in 2009-10 was exactly what it did in 1979. It facilitated a long-term Tory Government committed to austerity, and Scotland continues to suffer the sort of consequences of that. Also, Michael Marr mentions the Scottish Government's budget and also Glasgow City Council. Let's compare it with a real Labour Government in Birmingham. One and a half billion pounds they are going to have in cuts, including adult social care. They are going to be imposing a 21 per cent increase in council tax on the people of Birmingham. Of course, they have something in common with Glasgow in that they both had to deal with a legacy of Labour failing to play their female workers over many years. That is a history of Labour Governments. That is also the warning that we should have in terms of what we expect from a future Labour Government. We have been talking about local government. I remember being a local government leader in the early 2000s, going to the then Labour and Lib Dem executive in Scotland, and saying to them that, once again, they were cutting the share of the budget to Scottish local authorities. I was told by Labour and the Lib Dems that that is not an important indicator. Do not worry about that, but now it seems to be very important to Labour and to the Lib Dems as well. We are far more in terms of removing ring fencing and supporting local government than Labour have ever done. Alec Cole-Hamilton talks about selling off the seabed cheaply. That is the party that sold off the Royal Mail for billions of pounds less than its market value. We are still paying for that under Vince Cable. I will not mention what has been done by Ed Davies in terms of the post office or the betrayal on the tuition fees, but it is very important that people think that we should dismiss and forget about Lib Dems because they are in irrelevance. We should not forget their actual record in office. I will do it if I am allowed to. You have not got any additional time, Mr Brown. I have just concluded by saying that, given what has been said and given the complete absence of any substantive amendment or change to it, then to my mind, the best thing that the chamber can do is vote for the budget in the name of the Scottish Government. I think that we now move to the wind-up speeches. I call for Daniel Johnson up to seven minutes. In some ways, this debate is summed up by what we just heard—a desperate, flailing SNP speech. Something akin to a second-rate George Osborne tribute act, attempting to blame a Labour Government for a global financial crash, and despite the fact that the last Labour Government left the economy growing, we will have no more of that sort of chaotic nonsense. That has been a chaotic budget—a budget that is all-paying and no-gain. We will leave Scottish taxpayers paying more but getting less. It is a budget that is not just about a single year but the cumulative impact of 17 years of stop-gaps and short-term decision-making. That is not just us saying that. Committee after committee in this Parliament, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Frage of Aranda, Institute and Leading Economists, is a budget from a Government that is out of ideas, that is out of touch. Given that this is the penultimate budget of this Government, it is increasingly out of time. The reality is that, Scottish taxpayers are being failed by two Governments, the Tories ushering in a recession under Rishi Sunak and the SNP, presiding over 17 years of cuts, leaving every single institution in Scotland weaker and impoverished after their time of government. I think that perhaps the most interesting, most telling section of this debate was the exchange between Liz Smith and John Swinney. A contrast, two sides trying to juxtapose the social contract versus growth. Those are not binary options. You need one in order to deliver the other. When people get ill, we need the NHS so that people get better and return to work. We need a good education system so that people can learn the skills that they need for the workplace. Businesses need roads and rails that are invested in so that they can get both their goods to their customers and so that their workers can travel to their pace of work. You do not have either or a social contract. You need a good and well-funded public services for growth, but good and well-funded public services need growth in order to generate the revenues in order to invest in them. It is not either or. That is the mistake both of the Conservatives and the SNP in this chamber this afternoon. Michael Marr was quite right. In some ways, this whole budget process was summed up in its inception. I started with a commitment around local government designed in a matter of hours in order to give the First Minister struggling to make any headway whatsoever a talking point for his speech from the podium. The civil servant is given a mere hour's notice before he did so. Let us just look at that. It has been called out by the IFS, showing that it does not deliver the compensation to councils as originally set out, with £65 million to core budgets, leaving local authorities such as Glasgow making hundreds of cuts to teacher numbers. That is a travesty and will do long-term damage to our young people in Glasgow. I am very happy to mention it. I am actually enjoying your speech, but it is just empty rhetoric. Where is your alternative budget? I would be delighted if Mr Gibson could just point one year that the SNP in opposition presented an alternative budget in this Parliament. No, they did not, so we will have none of that. Let us come to health, because Jackie Baillie is quite right. A 4 per cent cut has done an awful lot of work in this afternoon's debate. Four per cent did into a 100 per cent cut in NHS projects across Scotland, which means that we do not know when the Alexandra pavilion will be replaced. We do not know when raid war will get its upgrade. We do not know when Loch Gellie will get its much-needed, upgraded health facilities. It is a budget that leaves our health service teaturing on the edge with sticking plaster to carry on. On housing, Mark Griffin was quite correct. A 26 per cent cut in this year's capital budget, yet again a massive amplification of that 4 per cent cut in capital budget. However, it is half the housing budget cut over two years. Is it any wonder then that we have 15,625 households waiting in temporary accommodation, that we see homelessness applications 36 per cent and Spice pointing out that how I'm building this year is going to be at half the rate, half if they're going to meet their affordable housing targets? That's not just a tragedy, it's an outright scandal. As Mark Griffin was correctly pointed out, a failure not to meet our calls, but for the Government to meet its own commitments, its own commitments on affordable housing, that's how far short this budget is. I have to say that Ivan McKee was quite correct that this isn't just about making things add up, but ultimately this budget is summed up by a lack of planning or strategy. The Finance Committee—I'm grateful for Daniel Johnson giving away. He will have heard in Keith Brown's rather bizarre tirade against my party, clearly upsetting him. No end. The Scottish Government has actually burned through half of the money of the selling off of our seabed on the cheap in this year alone. Does he accept that that betrays a lack of forward planning by this Government? Further more, I would add that they've squandered all the money that came in, patching up the holes in their own budget, rather than investing it for the future. It is absolute economic illiteracy. However, let's be clear. The Finance Committee itself described that the Scottish Government is procrastinating on important decision making. Again, just in recent days Audit Scotland set out that there is a lack of vision or medium-term financial strategy within the health service. The Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that the budget is growing 2.3 per cent over the coming medium-term period, but if the Scottish Government continues on its path, it will have to make 3 to 12 per cent cuts because of its failure to implement medium-term strategy. The Christie principles lie in tatters. That case that they set out for being outcome-oriented, focusing on stability, joined up medium-long-term planning, the Scottish Government has done precisely the opposite of each one of those points. We cannot have a budget that simply asks hard-working people to pay more, while public services are funded less and less. The SNP is asking for working people to put up for their encompasses, which is why Scottish Labour cannot support the budget this evening at decision time. At the start of the debate, my colleague Liz Smith set out her view that the budget exposes the fundamental divide in Scottish politics between those who want to see economic growth, to stimulate investment, to create jobs, to encourage aspiration and, crucially, to grow the tax revenues that we need to spend on our public services. Those who believe that the role of government is simply to tax individuals so that they can take more of their money and spend it, without any regard for the impact that it has on the wider economy. We see the outcome of that latter approach writ large, with Scottish economic growth over the last decade lagging behind the UK on average and indeed growing at only one-half the rate. Liz Smith quoted those, including many in the Scottish financial services sector, who are increasingly concerned about the growing tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and she was quite right to do so. The Parliament's Economy and Fair Work Committee heard recently from one large hospitality chain, which is already telling us that it is having to offer higher salaries to attract staff to Scotland to compensate for the additional tax that they will be paying. That is hardly surprising when someone earning £50,000 a year will be paying over £1,500 more in tax compared to someone south of the border. That simple illustration puts into context all that we have heard from the SNP messages this afternoon about some of the so-called benefits from their approach, because clearly that is not seen by many of the people out in the real world who might be attracted otherwise to come and work in Scotland. There might be some justification for the approach that we have outlined by the SNP if people really felt that they were getting good value for money. According to an opinion poll published earlier this month, by a margin of two to one, people in Scotland do not believe that the additional taxes that they are paying represent good value for money. Even on the SNP benches, we are starting to hear those who are raising concern about the tax differential. Kate Forbes was in the press a few weeks ago, describing continually increasing taxes as ultimately counterproductive. Even the former finance secretary, Derek Mackay, understood that equation. What a pity that the current incumbent of that office does not get that higher taxes do not necessarily lead to greater revenues. Can I thank you for taking intervention? He has carefully avoided mentioning the fact that the Tories have now got the highest tax burden since the Second World War. As well as the differential that he mentions, and he also never mentions a £400-500 less council tax in Scotland, will he at least acknowledge the base that the UK level has set in terms of the highest tax burden since the Second World War? Mr Brown makes the point about the tax burden. He seems to forget what we have had over the past few years. We had Covid when the entire economy was closed down and had to be supported by the Government borrowing money to support the economy, to support the furlough scheme, to support the very generous business support and individual support payments that were made to keep the country going. At least he is not suggesting that that is a bad idea. Of course, we had the invasion by Russia of Ukraine that had a devastating effect on the world economy. Again, the Government had to borrow money in terms of giving cost of living payments to many of our constituents who benefited from those payments. Of course, the Government had to borrow money, and when the Government borrowed money eventually, it had to pay it back. It should recognise that particular point. I have already taken an intervention. I might get away to Mr Swinney later if I have time. However, the fiscal commission pointed out that behaviour change will wipe out many of the potential gains from higher taxes on higher earners. It was an argument that was made many years ago by the economist Art Laffer, and it is true today as when he made it. I am used to hearing that argument in this chamber all the time from Alex Salmond. I know that we are not allowed to mention his name any more, Presiding Officer, but he used to mention it all the time. That seems to have been erased from the memory of the current SNP front bench. If he were to grow the economy, we would have more tax revenues. Instead, we see a real risk of higher earners leaving Scotland or not coming here in the first place. We are hearing about a boom in property sales in Northumberland and towns such as Berwick on Tweed, as the Scottish Government is creating tax exiles and then losing out on vital tax revenue as a result. Capital by £1.6 billion over the next three years will help to boost economic growth. I have to say to Mr Gibson that if he had done his homework and looked at the whole plethora of cuts being delivered by the SNP Government right across the economy and fair work portfolio, he would have a real brass neck to raise that particular question with us, given what is in the Government's support. What we see in the budget is simply a long list of cuts. No, thank you. Cuts to local government. We see right across the country, local services being cut, local services disappearing, libraries being closed and Mr Swinney's constituency, letter centres being closed, public toilets being closed, cuts to educational support staff, cuts to teachers and SNP-run Glasgow. 172 teaching jobs to go in Glasgow is city run by the SNP council appointment, made very strongly by Pam Goswell. All thanks to the choices of this SNP Government, Presiding Officer, those are cuts being handed down to them. When it comes to capital, we see cuts in funding of 26 per cent in housing at very time when we see homelessness at record levels. It cuts of 75 per cent in the Just Transition Fund, a total freezing of the NHS capital programme, meaning long-awaited patient treatment centres in cities such as Perth, not now proceeding. Health centres, long-awaited health centres, places like Lockhill and Concardin, not now being delivered. Of course, the SNP is trying to flag criticism. Yes, I'll give way. That's Mr Swinney. It's so persistent. I'm grateful to Mr Fraser for giving way. In responding to the intervention from my colleague Keith Brown, Mr Fraser mentioned some of the major difficulties that have faced the United Kingdom economy, Covid and Ukraine, and I agree with him that those are big factors. Would you now like to apologise for his support for Liz Truss's economic madness? Mr Swinney was the education secretary in the SNP Government. At the time when we have now had the result, the average child in Scotland is one year behind the equivalent child in England. If anyone makes it, you may apologise to Liz Truss. It's Mr Swinney for his record as education secretary when he was in the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government tried their best to deflect criticism and put the blame on Westminster for those cuts. Even if we accept that the capital budget has been reduced, it is down 10 per cent in real terms. How does that equate to a cut of 100 per cent in the NHS capital budget, or a 75 per cent in just transition funding, or a 26 per cent in affordable housing? You cannot take a 10 per cent cut and turn it into a 100 per cent cut in all those areas with any credibility and justification, but most worrying of all has been the cut in relation to the economy, fair work and energy portfolio. We know that this has been downgrading in the recent Scottish Government reshuffle, lumped in with net zero and environment, and perhaps that's no wonder. With an 8.7 per cent real terms cut across that portfolio, tourism down 12.3 per cent, enterprise trading investment down 16.7 per cent, Scottish national investment bank down 29.2 per cent, employability down 24.2 per cent, all the measures that could help with economic growth are being cut in this budget. This is a Government that has no interest whatsoever in promoting economic growth in creating jobs or supporting household incomes. This is a budget that has no friends outside this chamber. It has no interest group outside this chamber telling us to support this budget. It is a budget delivering real pain for communities across Scotland who will lose vital services, a budget hiking taxes on hardworking families but delivers no benefit to them as a consequence. It is a budget that fails Scotland and it is a budget that we should reject. Thank you and I call on the cabinet secretary to wind up up to 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, let me thank all contributions this afternoon from members across the chamber. I'll come back to some of them in a moment. Through this budget, we can show the breakdown and allocation between different portfolios and areas of activity within them. We're very cognisant, though, that in practice there will be areas that overlap in how they affect people, which is why we always consider our budgeting in the round. Of course, we always reflect on the priorities of the people of Scotland as we set budgets and will continue to seek new ways to engage with as wide an array of people and interests as possible as we work towards future budgets. As I set out, this budget, in difficult circumstances, prioritises front-line spend. I'll come back to that in a moment. However, there is a theme that we've heard throughout this budget process. The theme is that the members, particularly in Opposition Benches, focus on areas where difficult decisions have been made, with less focus, of course, where funding has increased in those front-line services. A refusal to bring alternative spending plans on any aspect of the budget, and of course not being straight with the public on pretending that you can cut taxes while increasing public spending at the same time. I'm afraid that that is not credible and it does not work. Whether it's Labour's £560 million that they would have to find through reductions in spending in order to fund their tax cuts, and of course what we've heard from UK Labour is a commitment to continue with Tory spending plans. The idea that there is any more money for health or housing or anything else is misrepresentation to say the least. Of course, the Tories, who have said essentially that they want to return to UK tax levels, would lose the Scottish budget £1.5 billion of revenues. Can you imagine the impact that that would have, whether it's on employability or areas of the economy or on housing or health or anything else? I think that we need a bit more transparency from the opposition here when it comes to the budget setting process. I want to turn to a couple of areas. First of all, on health, there was an interesting difference of opinion even on the front bench of the Labour benches on health. Daniel Johnson at least acknowledged that the health budget had increased while we heard Jackie Baillie and Michael Marra saying the opposite within the very same debate. The truth of the matter is not in a moment, because she didn't to me, but if I have time I may. An extra half a billion pounds for front-line NHS boards with total investment of £13.2 billion and an above inflation increase of 4 per cent in contrast to the UK Government's real terms cut. That's before, of course, we look at in-year revenues going to health, which of course depend on whether we get agenda for change pay consequentials from the UK Government. That, of course, we will pass every penny on to the NHS as we have done. An additional £230 million to support a minimum of £12 an hour for adult social care workers, a 10.1 per cent increase for all eligible workers, something that you would think would you not that the Labour benches would welcome and vote for, but they are voting against that proposition, which is quite astonishing. I also want to turn to the affordable housing supply programme, because it encapsulates again the refusal of the opposition to recognise the impact, not just of the 10 per cent cut in the capital budget, but the cut in financial transactions capital, which has had a devastating impact, £290 million less through financial transactions, which was underpinning the affordable housing supply programme. Just two weeks ago, a further 64 million cut to financial transactions directly impacting on the affordable housing supply programme, so it is not just the 10 per cent cut in capital, it is all the other cuts that undermine our ability to deliver. Of course, we have a good track record of delivery on affordable housing and one that we are determined to continue. As I have said, and I will say again, if we get additional capital at the spring budget next week, then of course the priority will be the affordable housing supply programme, because we recognise the importance of continuing with this Government's record on delivery, higher than anywhere else in the islands of affordable housing and of course the impact that that can have on homelessness. Let me turn to some of the other points. Liz Smith talked about Scotland's economic performance and of course there is always an attempt on the Tory benches to talk down Scotland's economic performance while presiding over a recession with economic commentators all to an institution saying exactly the same thing. The IMF of all organisations, the OBR, the IFS, the Resolution Foundation, talking about Tory economic incompetence of tax cuts instead of public spending. If that happens at next week's spring budget, it will be an outrage and will further compound the economic incompetence of the Tory Government. I'll give way to Liz Smith. I'm grateful to the cabinet secretary giving way, but I know full well that there are concerns within our own party about the comments that are forthcoming from so many in the business community just now about the increasing tax differentials and the difficulty that that is presenting to Scotland in terms of recruiting new labour that we absolutely desperately have in Scotland's powerhouse industries. We can't get some of these. These are not our comments. These are coming across the business community right left and centre and that's why this budget has had such a negative reaction. Let me say two things about that. Of course the Scottish Fiscal Commission built in the assumptions in terms of behavioural change. HMRC are doing a lot of in-depth work, which of course will pay close attention to, but the NRS data shows net immigration to Scotland, something again that the Tories just doesn't fit with their narrative so they can't bring themselves to welcome the fact that more people from the rest of the UK make an active choice to come and settle here. Why do they do that? Well, they do it because of free tuition, of the free supports that are given, but also the social contract where whether it's child care, there is a better offer and local services give a better offer to people. That is why we see people coming here from the rest of the UK to locate in Scotland and the Tories of course cannot bring themselves. Of course in terms of Scotland's economic performance, earnings in Scotland have grown by 8 per cent in 2023, faster than in any other part of the UK, including London and the south-east, providing much-needed revenues for our tax base, so it doesn't fit with the Tory narrative, but these are the facts about the performance of the Scottish economy. For once it would be refreshing to hear the Tories welcome some of those aspects. No, I don't have a lot of time. I will just gently say to Alex Cole-Hamilton when he talked about liberal budgets. We know what the last liberal budget looked like when it was part of a Tory liberal coalition that butchered welfare spending in the UK Government, which people are still seeing the consequences of whether it's the rape clause or the two-child limit. So we know what liberal budgets look like, so we'll take no lessons from Alex Cole-Hamilton very briefly. I'm very grateful for the cabinet secretary allowing me to interrupt yet another bizarre tirade from prominent SNP politician. She mentioned the rape clause. Rape clause did not come in under the Lib Dems. In fact, it was the Lib Dems in coalition government that stopped the worst successes of the Tory Government, like the rape clause. My goodness. Let's hear Mr Cole-Hamilton. My goodness, can't you see the tempering influence we held over that Government? Cabinet Secretary, I'm really not sure what to say other than if that's the best the Liberals can do to stop the worst successes of a Tory Government by propping up that Tory Government, then we know what happens when you vote Liberal Democrat. Like Kenny Gibson, I'm still waiting for any alternative budget proposals. He reminded the chamber quite rightly of the impact of the trust's budget, which is, of course, the leadership of the Tories in this place were urging and demanding in fact that we follow. He also, of course, quite rightly reminded the chamber of the position of local authorities down south, eight councils in England going bankrupt compared to record funding here in Scotland of £14 billion, a real terms increase to local government, even setting aside the money for the council tax freeze. Of course, isn't it ironic from the Tory benches that the only council so far to not freeze the council tax is the Tory Liberal Coalition in Argyll and Bute? Coming here, lecturing us about tax increases, whereas the only place where they are actually able to act rather than just their words, what do they do? They increase people's taxes by 10 per cent. They do one thing in opposition in this place, a very entirely different— The cabinet secretary must conclude— Government in a local authority, so we'll take no lessons from the Tories on tax policy. This is a budget in difficult circumstances that prioritises funding for front-line public services, and I urge the sensible people within this chamber to back it, because it means funding for services, it means funding for social security payments, and it means making sure that people are supported in difficult times. That concludes the stage 3 debate on budget Scotland's number 3 bill. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 1, 2, 3, 1, 8, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to the business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 1, 2, 3, 1, 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. And the next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 1, 2, 3, 1, 9 on referral of an SSI, and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move the motion. I'm moved, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, and there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 1, 2, 2, 9, 5, in the name of Shona Robison, on budget Scotland's number 3 bill, at stage 3, be agreed. And there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.