 The First Item of Business this afternoon is a debate on motion 15625, in the name of Derek Markey on the Budget Scotland number 3 bill. I would encourage all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their requests to speak buttons as soon as possible and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to speak to and move the motion. I am pleased to lead the debate today on the principles of the budget bill and I welcome the Finance and Constitution Committee's report on the budget. In the face of the chaos and turbulence from the UK Government, I urge the Scottish Parliament to deliver certainty and stability for Scotland by supporting the principles of the budget bill. This Scottish budget prepares our economy for the opportunities of the future, enables the transformation to a low-carbon economy, and builds a more inclusive and just society. I have listened carefully to the Opposition parties. The Tories demanding tax cuts for the highest earners with their raised less spend more hypocrisy. The Lib Dems abandoning new spending on education, colleges, mental health and childcare for their constitutional obsession. Labour and Labour were sources predicted that their party would deliver incompetence instead of an alternative budget, and that is what we got. To vote against the budget at stage 1 imperils the ability to raise the necessary revenues to fund our public services. It would have been reckless in the extreme, and to do so at a time when we have a UK Government that is engaging in systematic damage to our economy, austerity by choice and Brexit by design would have been even more damaging. The UK Government cannot be trusted to act in Scotland's interests. The Scottish Government will. As previously stated, if we face a no-deal Brexit, I will have to revisit the Scottish budget. However, I can confirm today that I have reached an agreement with the Greens that will secure the passage of the budget at every stage. I know that for councils, the ability to make more decisions locally is a key request. This Government will therefore take steps to empower Scotland's local authorities. I will set out measures today that will deliver the most significant empowerment of local authorities since devolution. COSLA has made the case for councils to have the power to apply a levy on transient visitors. For the Greens, that was a key issue in the budget negotiations. The Scottish Government will now undertake a formal consultation with the Scottish Government on the budget negotiations on the principles of a locally determined visitor levy, before introducing legislation that would permit local authorities to adopt such a policy. Mike Rumbles is so persistent, Mr Rumbles. I thank the finance minister for taking intervention in his agreement with the Greens. Could he tell us when he plans to abolish the council tax? I will be patient, Mr Rumbles. I am coming to that. The national discussion on this issue has illustrated a range of important issues to consider. That information will help us to get the structure right for the tourist industry as well as for local authorities. This Government takes no view on whether councils should introduce such a levy, but those actions go a step towards providing local authorities with the power. There has also been an on-going debate about providing local councils with the power to apply a levy on workplace car parking. That is a topic that is best managed at the local level, enabling local authorities to manage congestion, air quality and local transport. Subject to the specific exclusion of our NHS and hospitals, this Government will agree with the Greens an amendment to the transport bill that would enable those local authorities who wish to do so to have the power. The final transfer of power to local authorities will be the devolution of empty properties rates relief to local authorities by the next revaluation. In each of those cases it will be for local authorities taking into account local circumstances, the views of the business community and the electorate to decide whether to use them. The Government recognises the importance of longer-term budget stability for local authorities and will work with COSLA to move towards three-year budget settlements from 2020-21 and to develop an agreed fiscal framework for introduction in the next Parliament. The Green Party has sought to return to the conclusion of the cross-party commission on local tax reform, and the present council tax system must end. The Government will convene cross-party talks to progress that. If the agreement can be reached, legislation would be developed, though it would be for the next Parliament to implement. There will be no change during this Parliament to the council tax system. The draft budget increases funding for local government, providing total support of over £11 billion and an overall real-terms increase in the total local government settlement of around £210 million. However, I have heard the arguments—I will take an intervention from Kezia Dugdale. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking that intervention. If it is such a good deal for local government, can he explain why my constituents are facing £41 million worth of cuts from their SNP council? They will not be by the time I have finished this speech. However, I have heard the arguments—I have just heard them again—for more funding to be provided through raising income tax or business rates or greater flexibility over council tax. I have been clear throughout this process that I will not change income tax rates and business rates. We have set rates and we will stick to them. However, we have agreed an alternative package of support to Scotland's local authorities. As part of the agreement with the Greens, we will provide flexibility by capping council tax at 3 per cent in real terms, or 4.79 per cent. I encourage councils to take account of household incomes and remain at a flat 3 per cent. However, that gives councils the ability to raise an additional £47 million on top of the £80 million that they could already generate whilst keeping increases below the maximum level that is permitted in England. I have also agreed additional funding direct to the local government core grant. Members will recall that, in the budget, this government invested £55 million of additional funding in the NHS to make up for the shortfall in a Barnett consequentials that we had been promised, where the Tories sold the NHS short. We filled the gap. The UK Government has now confirmed that we can expect to receive further unexpected funding for the NHS in Barnett consequentials this year. As a result, using the additional flexibility in the management of the Scottish budget, I am able to deliver an additional £90 million for local government as part of their core settlement, while also keeping our promise that all Barnett consequentials for health will go to health. In fact, our NHS budget will now be £4 million higher than set out in December. As a result, using council tax, additional flexibility to offset spending and extra direct funding, local authorities will now have up to £187 million of additional spending power in their budgets. I can also confirm, as I have to the Greens, that the Scottish Government will transfer our share of the costs of the teachers' pay-offer to local government if it is agreed, amounting to nearly £280 million over three years. With those changes, I hope that this budget will win the support of Parliament. This budget provides a real-terms increase in the education portfolio and supports investment of almost £500 million to expand early learning and childcare. It invests £600 million in Scotland's colleges, more than £1 billion in Scotland's universities and more than £214 million in apprenticeships and skills. That budget continues our work to tackle poverty and mitigate the worst impacts of UK Government welfare cuts, with a total—of course— Thank you, Mr Mackay, for taking the intervention. I draw his attention to the blog by the Fraser Valander Institute, which details the fact that only £27 million in the Scottish Government budget is directly targeted at low-income families. Surely that shows that his words on poverty are hollow indeed. Parts of the Labour Party were proposing deep cuts in social security pay-for-other commitments. Where as this Government is spending more than the UK amount to spend on social security, but, importantly, this budget also makes provision for financial redress to survivors of historical child abuse and care, containing £10 million for advanced payments to those persons who may not live long enough to apply to the statutory redress scheme. Our economic action plan, fully funded in this budget, will improve the competitiveness of our business environment. We have committed £1.3 billion to support Scotland's seven cities and our regions to maximise economic opportunity. As has been welcomed by business, we are limiting the increase in business rates poundage to 2.1 per cent, meaning that more than 90 per cent of properties in Scotland will pay a lower poundage than they would in other parts of the UK. Our infrastructure investment totals more than £5 billion over the coming year, including £1.7 billion for transport and connectivity, £175 million for nursery and childcare buildings and a record £826 million for housing to help to deliver 50,000 affordable homes. £130 million will go to the establishment of the Scottish National Investment Bank and Precursor investments and will also establish a £50 million capital fund to ensure that our town centres are thriving, sustainable places and to ensure that the safety of our communities will provide a real-terms increase in funding for police and the investment needed for the transformation of our fire and rescue service. As part of the environmental measures that this budget supports in an agreement with the Greens, we will take action to increase the minimum levy for single-use carrier bags to at least 10p at the earliest opportunity. We will also agree in principle to the introduction of charging on disposable drinks cups, and we will act to take that forward following the report of the expert panel later this year. That will also include consideration of whether some of the revenue from both charges can be placed under the control of local authorities. Her income tax system is fair and progressive and balanced to raise additional revenue from those who can afford it most. Her budget does not increase any of the rates of income tax and it protects low and middle income taxpayers by increasing the starter and basic rates by inflation. 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers will continue to pay less than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK. That is before you consider any of the benefits of Scotland's social entitlements, such as state-funded university education, free prescriptions and concessionary travel, which we will continue to protect. Finally, those who are thinking of voting against the budget tonight will be voting against an increase in our direct investment in mental health, taking the overall funding for mental health to £1.1 billion and voting against a £730 million increase in health portfolio resource budget. Funding that will deliver a further shift in the balance of spend towards mental health and primary community and social care. The budget that we presented in December is good for Scotland. The proposals that I have set out today deliver more powers, more funding and more flexibility to local government. This budget backs our economy and it funds our NHS. No opposition politician can claim ownership of policies in this budget if they vote against the means to pay for them at decision time tonight. It is clear that Westminster is failing Scotland, while the Scottish Government is set to deliver a budget that safeguards Scotland as best we can. Getting on with the day job, delivering for Scotland, I commend the principles of this budget bill to the Parliament and I move the motion. Thank you very much. I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and move amendment 15625.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, it was bad enough that the draft budget published last month widened the income tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but today we have even more taxes to come, thanks to the deal that Mr Mackay has done with the Greens. This was an SNP Government—let's remember this—an SNP Government elected on the manifesto commitment not to raise the rate of income tax for basic rate payers, a promise that they have broken, an SNP Government elected on a promise to cap council tax increases at 3 per cent, another promise they have broken, another SNP Government elected on a commitment not to introduce a tourism tax, another promise they have broken, and on top of that today we have the introduction of a new workplace levy. This is a triple tax bombshell from this SNP Government, and it will do nothing for the competitiveness of the Scottish economy. Derek Mackay might think that he is Dr Who with Patrick Harvie as his assistant, but between them they will exterminate the opportunity for Scotland to grow its economy and be a good place to live and work and build a business. Does anyone seriously doubt that a deal was going to be struck between the SNP and the Greens? Despite the annual charade that we see between the two partners dancing around each other, we are trying to pretend that there was no deal. No deal was just about as likely as Ross Greer winning politician of the year from the Churchill Appreciation Society, and yet we were all strung along, made to think that this budget could fall. The Greens were very firm in advance of this budget, nothing less than the abolition of the council tax, and a wholesale reform of local taxation would get them on board. Instead, they have been sold short. What have we had? Just a fudge, just another promise of a round of cross-party talks. Mr Wightman, you have been let down. Andy Wightman I thank the member for giving way. Martin Fraser will be aware that it is not within the gift of the Scottish Greens to abolish the council tax. It is not within the gift of the SNP to abolish the council tax. That would require legislation, and now party in this Parliament is in a majority. So I ask Martin Fraser, given that there is a commitment to cross-party talks, to agree a replacement, to draft the legislation, will he A, take part in those talks and will he do so on the basis of goodwill and a determination to scrap the regressive council tax? Martin Fraser I feel sorry for Andy Wightman, because the Greens and Andy Wightman were so clear that they would not be signing up to a budget that did not commit to the end of the council tax. They have let their voters down. Andy Wightman famously wrote a book called Who Owns Scotland? The question today is, Who Owns Andy Wightman? The answer to that is, it is Derek Mackay. The context for this budget was that the finance secretary found himself in the healthier position that he was expecting, with Barnett consequentials of £950 million in the Scottish block grant following the chancellor's announcements in October. That increase means that, according to SPICE, the finance secretary's total budget is up in real terms on last year. Let's never forget that, contrary to all the spin that we hear from the SNP benches, the Scottish Government's total budget is up in real terms since 2010 by £1 billion. The background to all the Scottish Government's financial choices is the Barnett formula, which at the latest estimate, according to the Scottish Government itself, delivers an additional £1,800 of additional spending for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That is a fiscal transfer to Scotland, a union dividend of more than £10 billion each year. What is the SNP policy on the Barnett formula on this multi-billion-pound bonus to Scotland? It wants to scrap it and create a black hole in the public finances of Scotland to the tune of £10 billion. That is why the greatest threat to our public services comes from independence and the continual threat of a second independence referendum. Against the backdrop of more money from Westminster, the finance secretary's choice was to extend the income tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK, meaning that those earning between £43,430 and £50,000 will face a marginal tax rate of 53 per cent. It means that public servants such as police sergeants, senior nurse managers and principal teachers will be paying more tax than their counterparts south of the border, in some cases more than £1,500. It means that anyone earning more than £27,000 will pay more than their equivalents south of the border. That is even before the other tax increases that we heard announced just a moment ago. Those people are not rich. We are not talking about households earning just £27,000, but they are going to pay the price of having an SNP Government. What we wanted to see in this budget is a focus on growing the economy, a focus on the need for which was made apparent in the Scottish Fiscal Commission's report published in December. For each of the next four years, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is forecasting that the Scottish economy will grow at a lower rate than the UK as a whole, and that earnings here will grow more slowly. That is a consequence for the public finances, because a slower-growing economy and slower-rising earnings means less in terms of the tax take and less money to spend on public services. Of course I will give way. True or false, Mr Fraser, did the Scottish Fiscal Commission attribute those subdued figures due to Brexit? I think that there is a lack of productivity that it attributed to. That is the challenge that the Scottish Government is failing to address right at the moment. Brexit applies across the whole United Kingdom. It is the relative performance of the Scottish economy to the rest of the UK that needs to concern us. If we look at the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast for income tax for the coming year, we see that illustrated perfectly. In the period between May and December last year, the revised downwards income tax forecast by a staggering £661 million. That is a cool two-thirds of £1 billion that we are potentially missing out on. I appreciate that income tax is just one of the devolved taxes, and we also have to look at the block grant adjustment. We see the complete picture when we look at the Finance and Constitution Committee's report on the draft budget, paragraph 69, which confirms that, in the 2019-20 budget, we now have a forecast net tax position £257 million down in real terms compared to where we were in December 2017. That is money that we are losing. Those are only estimates, but in due course all those figures will have an impact on actual spending. Table 8 of the Fiscal Commission's report shows the income tax reconciliations. For last year, the forecast reconciliation is £145 million, which will have to be met in the financial year 2020-21. Even more serious is the forecast outturn for this year, which is down £472 million to be met in the budget for 2020-21-22. That is another £0.5 billion black hole in the Government's forward budget plans. How the finance secretary must hope that those forecasts turn out to be wrong? Otherwise, he will be the one writing a note to his successor saying that he is sorry that there is no money left. In the course of this debate, my colleagues will assess the Scottish Government's spending plans in more detail. I will highlight one example of spending in the Scottish Government's draft budget. International relations is a reserve matter. The Government is increasing the spending on international relations by a staggering 52 per cent over two years, from £15.7 million to £23.9 million. It tells us that there is no money to spend. This is us, funding Scottish ministers, grandstanding around the globe at our expense. If ever there were the area of spending that could be trimmed, surely that is it. With Scotland's relative economic underperformance compared to the rest of the UK, we should have had the budget that focused on improving our economy, on maximising the tax take from our growing economy, not on widening the tax gap and not on penalising those earners who are currently living here. Every 20 new additional rate taxpayers that we attract to Scotland would generate £1 million extra in tax revenue. An extra 2,000 additional rate taxpayers would give us a minimum of £100 million annually. According to figures that I heard quoted recently, a 1 per cent increase in Scottish Provoc activity would deliver £2.3 billion extra in GDP and £400 million extra in tax revenues. Rising wages deliver much higher revenues than increases in the tax rate. There was a time when people on the SNP front bench understood the simple laws of economics but, sadly, they are now long gone. We made an offer to the SNP in advance of this budget. We asked them to ditch their plans for an unwanted second referendum, to take action to marrow the tax gap rather than widen it, to sit down and have a serious conversation about plans to grow the Scottish economy and how to support our public services. Rather than talk to us, they would rather talk to the anti-growth, anti-business greens. Instead of reducing the tax burden, they are going to put it up. The consequence will be that the Scottish economy will continue to underperform and will have yet more taxes on hard-working families. That is not a direction that we can support. For that reason, we will vote against this budget at decision time tonight. I move the amendment in my name. Bruce Crawford to speak to the motion on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. I begin by thanking the committee's clerking team, led by James Johnson, who provided the committee with fantastic support. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for the constructive and consensual manner in which they approached our committee's scrutiny of the 2020 budget. It is great credit to them all for being able to agree a unanimous budget report. In the current polarised climate, we can underestimate the power of politicians working together, laying aside their differences and agreeing a way forward. There is no doubt in my mind that the country is crying out for such an approach in respect of the current Brexit stalemate. As colleagues across the chamber I know are aware, the budget scrutiny function has become increasingly complex and challenging as a result of additional tax powers having been devolved. Using the term complex again, I think that I am in danger of wearing out the use of the term as I seek to describe the challenges that we face. Moreover, I might be seeing a risk of being seen as a sort of nutty professor from the University of the Fiscal Framework. On a serious point, though, the committee is indebted to our adviser, David Iser, who is a great knack of unraveling the intricacies of the new model for devolution. If you bear with me for a few moments, I think that it is worth creating some of those intricacies, because they are important. While challenging, it is incumbent on all of us across the chamber to understand how the Government budget is funding. Not least because the Parliament now raises 40 per cent of the budget in tax revenues. As those tax revenues have been devolved, the size of the grant has simultaneously reduced. However, those are not one-off reductions. That was the case, and clearly the impact of the size of the reduction would decrease over time due to inflation. The initial reduction is therefore indexed to an annual adjustment to the block grant. That adjustment is based on the growth of devolved tax revenues relative to the equivalent taxes in the rest of the United Kingdom, adjusted for population growth. However, the real challenge here is that those adjustments are based on forecasts, which then need to be reconciled with out-turn figures. That is when the forecast for income tax revenues, which form part of the budget for 2020, will not be reconciled with the actual tax receipts until out-turn figures are published in July 21. Any difference between the forecast and out-turn will not be addressed until the Scottish budget in 2022-23, a full three financial years after the initial forecast. That is the process, but what does it mean for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in practice? As you know, 2017-18 was the first year when this Parliament set its own rates and bans for income tax. When the out-turn figures for 2017-18 were published by HMRC in July this year, we will have an initial indication of the actual impact of this new process in relation to income tax. As I said during the pre-budget debate last week, this will be an important moment and will prove a reality check for actual income tax receipts raised in Scotland. As we explained in our budget report, there is a risk here for the Scottish Government. If in July we find out that those out-turn figures result in a shortfall for 2017-18, that will require addressing in next year's budget. Alternatively, July's out-turn figures might produce a higher than we expected, resulting in a pleasant windfall for the Cabinet Secretary. However, based on the latest forecast for income tax raised in 2017-18, the Scottish Government is facing a potential shortfall of £145 million. I should remind colleagues that those forecasts and forecasts, as we know by their very nature, invariably differ from the actual out-turn. Nevertheless, that provides an illustration of the risks involved and an increasingly difficult challenge that ministers now and in the future will face in managing those risks. Moreover, as the committee points out and reports, that also presents a challenge for this Parliament in deciding our priorities for managing that risk. In particular, there will be political choices to make. About further, for instance, we should address the risk by increasing the size of the Scotland reserve. If that is the direction chosen, where would that money actually come from? Would colleagues be content if money used to support spending on important public services in the short term were instead saved to meet potential shortfalls in the medium term? Mike Rumbles I thank the member for giving way. Considering that we have just had extra spending announced by the finance secretary, does he feel that his committee should now examine that extra spending and find out exactly where it is coming from? Mike Rumbles knows that that will be the decision for the committee to make in due course. Alternatively, we could be asking the Liberals here to describe whether we are going to make a payment into the Scotland reserve where that money would come from, if that is what he is considering. Alternatively, should the priority to be used borrowing powers within the fiscal framework, if needed, which would allow ministers to borrow up to £300 million a year to deal with the forecast error? Those are new and challenging choices that this Parliament is going to have to engage with and to grapple with. There are also choices that need to be more widely understood. The committee also heard concerns from witnesses that in Scotland there are 2 million adults who do not pay income tax. We also heard concerns that the gender balance of the income tax base is that there are 300,000 fewer women taxpayers and that higher rate tax payers comprise of 91,000 women and 275,000 men. Another important element of a report was Brexit, which I will now return to. The OBR's most recent economic and fiscal outlook states that the referendum vote to leave the EU appears to have weakened the economy, while the added uncertainty regarding Brexit negotiations appears to have dampened business investment by more than earlier data suggested. The OBR also took account of the significant fall in the exchange rate that accompanied the referendum and its outcome. The OBR pointed out that the average quarterly growth has slowed from 0.6 per cent between 2013 and 2015 to 0.4 per cent since the beginning of 2016, taking the UK from near the top of the G7 growth league table to near the bottom. The OBR also told us that we would have forecast prior to the referendum, assuming that there would be a vote to remain in the EU, that the economy would grow by roughly 4.5 per cent between the time of the referendum and now. The first forecast that we produced after the referendum reduced the figure to about 3 per cent. The latest outturn data suggests that growth has been about 3.2 per cent. Although those forecasts are not great, they do assume an orderly Brexit as part of the negotiations. The OBR also believes that a disorderly Brexit could have severe short-term implications for the economy. The exchange rate, asset prices are the public finances. In the OBR's view, that could mean that UK asset prices fall sharply, which together with heightened uncertainty could cause households and businesses to rein in their spending. A fall in the pound would also raise domestic prices, squeezing households, real incomes and spending. I make those points by way of background because the committee was strongly of the view that a no-deal Brexit would be damaging to the Scottish economy and public finances and therefore is clearly not in the national interest. In conclusion, the committee has previously emphasised the increasing volatility and uncertainty as well as the upside and downside risks arising from the way that the fiscal framework works and, in particular, the reliance on forecasts for the annual budget. The evidence that we have considered in relation to the budget for 2020 reinforces that view. Those risks are exacerbated by the continuing uncertainty around Brexit, which both the SFC and the OBR have highlighted as having a negative impact on business investment and economic growth. Those are challenging times indeed, and we must rise to those challenges on behalf of the Scottish people. They rightly expect us to do just that. The Scottish Labour will oppose this dreadful budget, which is a weak response to the crisis that is facing public services. It is a cuts budget that threatens the jobs of council workers and fails to tackle the rising levels of poverty while handing tax cuts to high earners. What is needed in the budget is to address the issue of local government funding and to produce a fair funding settlement and to stop the cuts. In order to address rising poverty levels, we needed a £5 rising child benefit and an end to the two child cap. Labour also demanded reversing the increase on rail fares and giving much-needed relief to the passengers who are too often left stranded on our platforms on their commute to their jobs in the morning. Turning to local government, in spite of the announcement that has been made by the cabinet secretary, there are £319 million of cuts that were published in the budget by Mr Mackay on 12 December. The announcement that has been made today goes nowhere near closing that gap. The other point that I would make to the Greens is that this is the third year in a row that Mr Mackay has introduced a budget that has penalised local government and produced cuts. Yet again, the deal that will work for the Greens does not close the funding gap in that year or in the previous year. I am grateful to Mr Kelly for giving way. Of those three years, could he explain to the chamber precisely what scale of impact the Labour approach to budget engagement has achieved? How many changes? How many cuts have been prevented? How many local services saved? James Kelly, order, please. Order. Why may we make it absolutely clear that Labour will never sign up to a budget that has cuts to local council services in it? Why may we make some progress, Mr Mackay? What I would say to the Green Party is that I sat in this chamber week after week and I hear Green Party MSPs, including Mr Harvey, making noble speeches about reversing and stopping the cuts to council services, tackling poverty and fair taxation. That budget fails in all those three counts, so you are letting your supporters down by signing up to this budget tonight. On tackling poverty, it is an absolute scandal in modern Scotland that we have 230,000 children living in poverty. Each month, in his Renfrew North and West constituency, Derek Mackay holds a constituency surgery in Galohill. In Galohill, 29 per cent of children in that area are living in child poverty. I would like to know why the Labour Party would rather leave those children at the mercy of the Conservatives rather than take decisions in this Parliament to protect them. My intervention was this. By what percentage increase would the Labour Party raise the higher rate to pay for your budget demands? If you have not done the costings, I have for you. In terms of tax, first of all, we would make sure that all those cabinet secretaries sitting on the front bench are there. When they vote for the budget tonight, they are awarding themselves a tax cut, but it is an absolute scandal. In terms of the issue of poverty, as the poverty and inequality report showed this morning, the Government is only meeting four out of its 15 targets. That shows you how remiss your budget is, Mr Mackay, in terms of addressing those issues. If members wish to make an intervention, please stand up and ask Mr Kelly if they wish to make an intervention, not just speak. I do not want to take the intervention. I want to point out that this is an unfair budget based and unfair taxation when it awards tax cuts up to everyone earning £124,000. If you are a chief executive and a managing director or a cabinet secretary, you are cheering this budget on tonight because it will give you a tax cut. However, if you are a commuter in a platform waiting for a delayed train or a cancelled train not able to get to your work and a hospital appointment, you will not be cheering this budget on. The question that those MSPs in that middle section have got to answer tonight when you come to vote, is that you look in the eyes of the council workers that are going to potentially face getting a P45 as a result of this budget? Do you look to the families who do not go out to school in the morning—kids do not go out to school in the morning and are properly fed or properly clothed because they are living in poverty? I am going to be helped by this budget. Can you apologise to the rail passengers who are not going to get a rail's freeze as a result of this budget? It is time for a different approach. Time you took it, time you take the budget back to the drawing board, rewrite it, it is an unfair budget, a cuts budget and we will vote against it at 5 o'clock tonight. Thank you, and I call on Patrick Harvie to be followed by Willie Rennie. Over the last two years, the Scottish Greens have been determined to take the budget process seriously and to achieve meaningful change for the people that we all represent. We have achieved a transformation, a restructuring of Scotland's income tax policy, which the Conservatives do not like because they only care about tax cuts for the wealthy. We have achieved protection for local services year after year after year. Last year, we made it clear that local tax reform was urgent and would become increasingly so. Scotland has a centralised, constrained and underpowered system of local government, and that needs to change. The package of local tax reform measures that we have seen announced today will make real progress. We have, for the first time, a clear definitive timescale for publishing legislation to abolish and replace council tax during this session of Parliament. Like last year, the Greens will not vote for a budget that cuts local government funding. Will local government funding be cut this year? Patrick Harvie. I am coming on to the 1920 impact in a moment. The package of local tax reform measures includes that timescale for legislation to abolish council tax, and I hope that all political parties will engage with that. It includes a commitment to legislation on a tourism tax, on workplace parking levies, on environmental charges such as plastic bags and cups increasing, and those measures have additional opportunities to raise revenue for local councils in the future. There will be future devolution of control of non-domestic rate reliefs, and we will continue to make the case for going even further than the Government has announced on that. There will be return to three-year funding settlements, multi-year funding settlements for Scotland's local councils, with a fiscal framework developed on a rules-based approach to ensure that we know and that councils know that they can plan for the future. That, I think, is something that is long overdue, and I hope that all political parties will be able to support. The development of that multi-year package must begin early, well ahead of the next budget process. As for the impact of the 1920 financial year and the impact on local government in particular, as in previous years, I will not claim that that is perfection. I do not think that the Scottish Government should claim that it is perfection. Even if the budget as published had treated local services fairly, we would have wanted further changes. The shift away from high-carbon infrastructure, which was won as a commitment last year, is still being achieved, but only just about. Spice research shows that it is in danger in the next few years. We will need to see further progress on that. However, as published, that budget did offer the potential of a crisis in local services. Even Derek Mackay's own party colleagues in SNP-led councils were making that clear to him. The overall package that we have seen announced today, including new money, new flexibility and new and existing local revenue-raising powers, adds up to a package that is worth more than the COSLA figure of a £237 million cut to local services. Members shouting from this side of the chamber are well aware, because they received COSLA's briefing ahead of the budget just as we all did, setting out that £237 million cut. The package that we have achieved today more than fills that gap. I will give one more intervention. Daniel Johnson Is Patrick Harvie saying that the new levies that have been promised are going to be ready for the coming financial year? Otherwise, I feel to see how the statements that he is making are correct. Patrick Harvie No, I have not said that at all. I have made a clear distinction between the long-term package of local tax reform measures and the short-term measures to improve the financial position of councils across Scotland, which will close that £237 million gap for the 2020 financial year. I am sure that Mr Johnson will read more into the detail of that when he is able to. I have given way already. I am sorry. I have a minute and a half left to finish. The budget process at the moment is not what it should be. We have a down-to-the-wire approach from the Scottish Government, and we have a refusal to engage from most of the other political parties. The Conservatives want a proposal that no other party will support. Labour produced an uncosted wish list and no meaningful ideas about how to fund it. Just because the budget is published in December does not mean that this process is about writing letters to Santa. I can honestly say that of the people I have met in recent weeks to discuss the budget, some of those expressing the greatest frustration have been Labour councillors and colleagues in the trade union movement who wished to goodness that the Labour Party in Parliament was making some effort to make improvements to the budget. I wish that they were as well. I think that our whole Parliament would be stronger and the outcome would be better for Scotland if all political parties took their responsibilities to do that seriously. I can respect anyone who busts a gut to try to achieve a change, is unable to and then votes against it. However, to not even try, only the Greens appear to be engaging positively in the process. Others seem to think that engineering a crisis would be the best outcome instead of achieving changes that work for the country. It is as though some people look at the US Government shutdown or the shambolic incompetence at Westminster and think that they should do the same here. Chaos for the sake of chaos is not what Scotland needs. As a result of the Green Party's work in this budget, councils will not only have resources to put into their local services, but every party in this Parliament will have the chance now to shape the future of Scottish local government finance. I hope that they all take the opportunity to engage in that process more constructively than they have with this year's budget. We have heard that Derek Mackay has compared himself with Dr Who. Patrick Harvey has said that he would be the doctor's assistant. For everybody, that is the one that takes the story forward by rescuing the doctor. I bet that he wishes that he could get in that TARDIS and go back into the time when he said that he would never vote for a budget that did not include the abolition of the council tax. Just like last year, the Greens have ridden to the rescue of the SNP. Nationalists together once more. The Greens have been bought cheaply. The extra money for councils was already available. Local government finance reform has been delayed until the next Parliament bogged down once again in another commission. Patrick Harvey has settled for the vice convenership of the car parking working group. No, he does not seem to have even got that either. I agree with the finance secretary that Brexit is the biggest threat to our economy. It could cost £2 billion in Scottish tax revenues by 2034, directly affecting our Scottish budget. The cost is high and it will affect the most vulnerable, the most years of pain, turmoil and turbulence. Some people in this chamber agree with me about the economic damage but have given up on that fight. However, I feel the responsibility to do everything that I can to prevent this. Just like I feel the responsibility to prevent independence, there are striking parallels between the claims of the Brexiteers and those who argue for independence. The Brexiteers predicted that it would be easy and that the opportunity would be great, the easiest negotiations in history. The nationalists here predict exactly the same about Scottish independence. However, we know that, just like Brexit, the cost of breaking up the UK would be great—in fact, even greater. That is why I make absolutely no apology for putting independence at the centre of our budget negotiations this year. It is not some distant threat in many years hence. The First Minister is already ramping up the rhetoric in her usual obsession. We made a generous offer to the finance secretary and the Government preparations for independence for the rest of this Parliament. A short cessation, we did not demand the Scottish National Party's stopped believing. We said that if we put independence to one side, we could work together on the needs of local government, the funding of mental health services and support for teachers pay. However, he declined preferring to put independence first, just like they always do. We will not support a Scottish Government that will use this budget as a stepping stone to independence and the economic damage that that would bring. That does not prevent me from giving the Scottish Government some, I hope, helpful advice. The relationship between the Scottish Government and local government is not a good one, and has got to change. The Scottish Government should not treat councils in the manner in which they say that the UK Government treats them, yet they play fast and loose with the budgets, demanding that they do more but failing to provide the funds that are necessary to cover those new responsibilities, as well as their existing ones. Education is supposed to be the Government's guiding mission. However, right now, schools in my constituency, in North East Fife, are facing £500,000 off-cuts. That is because this Government has harbored local government budgets, no. We successfully harried the Scottish Government to invest in mental health services, but the Government is now playing catch-up, and we remain unconvinced that the funds announced will feed through to real change quickly enough. Last year, we said that mental health spend should rise to £1.2 billion, but a year later it is still £100 million short. That is £100 million that could go to the health professionals in the NHS in schools and the police, but no, it is £100 million short. We need a budget that puts teachers at the very centre of our developing economy in the years to come. Liberal Democrats were the first to advocate the use of new income tax powers gained by the Scottish Parliament. We said that a modest rise could secure a significant financial investment for education without resulting in adverse behavioural change. We were never in favour of rank up tax at every budget. It was about the balance. Everyone knows that the SNP broke its 2016 election manifesto commitment on income tax, but, thankfully, the manifesto was wrong. The progressive change that was implemented has not driven taxpayers out of the country, but it is a delicate balance. I have a warning for the Scottish Government. Be careful with that balance. Do not play with the trust of the taxpayers again. If they believe that tax rises will come with every budget, then they may see behavioural adverse change. We must win the argument that modest progressive tax changes can work. I want to give confidence that that progressive modest change is possible and is good for public service. All of that could have been possible if the Scottish Government had put independence to one side just for now, but the SNP's independence is more important than teachers pay, than council funding and mental health. We say absolutely no to that. Thank you very much. We now enter the open part of the debate. I call Angela Constance to be followed by Dean Lockhart. I hope to use my time today to reflect wisely and calmly on some of the challenges that we all collectively face in our pursuits to make Scotland fairer and more prosperous. I believe that we all have a role to play in that and I also believe that we also have a responsibility. I like the cabinet secretary. I am very focused on the day job, so I want to start by raising a few very specific points. I hope that that does not sound like my shopping list. Although not all the items are solely for the finance secretary to purchase, the first one certainly is. I have raised with Mr Mackay and other ministers every opportunity through the budget process the benefits of enabling credit unions to access a small proportion of financial transactions within the budget available to enable investment to increase capacity. The Welsh Government has done that and, as we know, financial transactions just sometimes can be difficult to fully utilised. As I am an admirer of Mr Mackay's to aid his consideration, I thought that I would quote to him some burns. Where sits our sulky sullen dame gathering our brews like a gathering storm nursing our wrath to keep it warm? This sulky sullen dame is very much looking forward to the cabinet secretary's response. I also have the pleasure of serving on the finance committee, which is very ably chaired by my friend and colleague Bruce Crawford. As Bruce Crawford has already said, the stage 1 report was published with unanimous support from committee members, despite one of those committee members being Murdo Fraser, whom I have to say in his opening remarks today, sounded somewhat like a comedian at the central pier in Blackpool. Despite that and despite the complexity of the fiscal framework and forecasting and the many different political views on Brexit, income tax policy and the constitution and so forth, the kitchen sink and everything else under the sun, the finance committee could still come to agreement demonstrating that if politicians are prepared to talk and roll their sleeves up that a baseline agreement can always be achieved. Yet what we have seen today is the two biggest opposition parties and the Liberal Democrats determined to obstruct every avenue. It is a shame—no, because I am going to use my time wisely. I try not to do what Mr Kelly has done and nearly burst a blood vessel. It is a shame that the approach has not fully permeated across the chamber. I have never, in all my political life, asked a unionist, whether a blue one or a red one or a yellow one, to ditch their beliefs. I have never asked a unionist not to campaign for the union, not to campaign for what they believe in, yet they have the audacity to ask me and others. I may well be a rabid painter-faced blue nat, but if I can focus on the day job and on the budget, the business of the finance committee, if the finance secretary can lead the way in good faith and extend in the hand of friendship, incorporation and budget negotiations, what on earth is holding people back? I do very much welcome the increased funding of flexibility for local government. I know that the local government's review is on-going. It cuts across all the public sector and the community and voluntary sector as well. The increased autonomy for local government is the early fruits of that work and the constructive challenge from the Greens. I hope that it is a new chapter on our public sector reform journey. In my view, one of the great missed opportunities as a small country was the failure of our predecessors to reform public services when public finances were comparatively good and pre-osterity. It will be much harder to continue our reform journey, but it is now more necessary than ever. If I focus on just one quick example, the annual health resource budget has increased by 52 per cent, £4.8 billion, since 2006-07. Good news indeed, but will we be able to increase that again by 52 per cent over the next decade? I do not know. Will we be able to do so? Will we have to do so? I hear colleagues of all political persuasions in the margins of committee meetings and parliamentary life acknowledge the need for courage and conversation and a commitment to working together across the chamber for the challenges that we face in our collective future. However, that commitment across the chamber has yet to fully emerge, and perhaps the new all-year-round budget scrutiny will help with the process. I will say very quickly that we should always have the courage to invest in the long-term. Our investment in housing is a shining example of that. The £1.7 billion resource planning assumptions to local authorities to build for the future gives them confidence and continuity to do that. The record investment of £826 million for affordable housing is really welcome, given that it is a crucial part of the child poverty delivery plan, economic stimulus and increases the tax take. I very much hear Labour's calls to increase child benefit by £5 a week. It is not a bad idea, it is just not the best idea. It would cost in the region of £250,000 per annum. It would lift between 10,000 and 15,000 children out of poverty. If we use the same resource differently, we could lift 40,000 children out of poverty. Each year, the SNP's programme for government promises new flagship policies to help Scotland's struggling economy, but each year, when it comes to the budget, we see that the SNP fails to deliver on those promises. Take the 2016 programme for government, which announced the Scottish growth scheme, promising £0.5 billion investment in the economy, but here we are three years later, we see from this budget that only 20 per cent of this money has been invested. In 2017, the SNP promised that a new publicly owned energy company would deliver lower energy costs, but two years later, this budget allocates no funding for the establishment of the energy company. The SNP track record of over-promising but under-delivering continued into the 2018 programme for government when the SNP announced the establishment of Scotland's national investment bank, promising £2 billion of investment for enterprise development. When it comes to delivering this in the budget, we see cuts to the budgets of the enterprise agencies. We see funding of £130 million for the bank, not the £2 billion promised, and we find out that more than 90 per cent of the bank's funding is coming from the UK treasury in the form of financial transactions money, money that Derek McKay described as a con when it was announced. The SNP might complain about financial transactions money, but we welcome the fact that the Scottish National Investment Bank is being funded by the UK treasury. This budget contains many more examples of how increased funding from the UK Government is benefiting Scotland. The overall budget is up by £1 billion, spending on Scotland's NHS is up by £600 million, and the new £50 million town centre fund, referred to by Mr McKay, is a straight pass-through from Barnett consequentials. However, to understand the full extent of UK Government support for Scotland's public services, we need to look beyond this budget and look at the latest GERS numbers. As the SNP's very own growth commission report quite rightly highlights on page 33, the GERS report is a helpful starting point for an analysis of Scotland's public finances. We agree, and here's what the latest GERS report tells us about how Scotland's public services are funded. Public spending in Scotland for 2017-18 was £73.4 billion, but stand-alone tax revenues in Scotland were only £60 billion. In other words, after 11 years of SNP government, Scotland has a net fiscal deficit of £13.4 billion. That's the highest deficit between spending and tax revenues in Scotland since devolution. I will, in a second, it's also the highest union dividend Scotland has ever seen. The financial boost that Scotland gets from being part of the UK is now equivalent to £1,900 per person in Scotland. I'll give way to the member. John Mason. I thank the member for giving the way. Would he accept that the UK Government has some responsibility, at least for the Scottish economy? Dean Lockhart The UK Government is responsible for monetary policy, and right now, interest rates and monetary policy are at historic lows. That's the support coming from the UK Government. If John Mason is trying to blame Scotland's underperformance on the UK Government, why is the rest of the UK growing three times faster than Scotland? John Mason To put this deficit into context, it represents 7.9 per cent of Scotland's GDP. That's higher than the deficit of every other country in Europe and compares to a UK-wide deficit of 1.9 per cent and an EU average of 1 per cent. Here's why this deficit matters. If the SNP gets its wish of an independent Scotland in Europe in order to reduce Scotland's deficit to 3 per cent of GDP, required by the EU stability and growth pact, the SNP would have to cut spending in Scotland by £8.3 billion. Let me ask Mr Mackay where would the spending cuts of £8.3 billion come from if he gets his wish of independence? I'll give way if the finance secretary wants to tell us where those cuts of £8.3 billion are coming from. Derek Mackay Under independence we would grow our economy among the most successful economies in the world. In response, I ask Mr Lockhart why he's avoiding the most recent economic statistics, record low unemployment, record high exports and sustained growth on GDP. That's what the Government's delivering for Scotland's economy. Dean Lockhart Well, GDP numbers released just yesterday showed that Scotland is growing just a third of the rate of the UK. Mr Mackay, that might come as news for you, but you've had 11 years to grow Scotland's economy. The finance secretary didn't say where the £8.3 billion of spending cuts would come from, so let me suggest an answer for him. £8.3 billion of cuts is more than double the entire education budget, more than half of NHS spending in Scotland, and £8.3 billion is 75 per cent of the entire local government budget. There we have it—the real cost of the SNP's obsession with independence, public spending cuts of a level never seen before in this country. As the SNP's own growth commission made clear, the financial and economic case for independence has never been weaker. It's now clearer than ever that Scotland needs a new direction in economic policy. The SFC is forecasting another five years of economic stagnation. After 11 years of SNP government, Scotland has become a low growth, low wage and low productivity economy, but it doesn't have to be this way. Scotland's long-term economic growth is 2 per cent, and we on this side of the chamber believe that Scottish economic growth can return to those levels but only with the right economic policies in place, but that won't happen with this budget. The increased taxis that we are seeing in this budget, the triple whammy of higher taxes, just agreed with the Greens, means that in the future we are going to see increasing divergence with the rest of the UK in terms of economic growth, tax revenues and spending on public services, and that's why we cannot support this budget. He's closing in, thank you. Oh, in fact, he's closed. I now call John Mason to be followed by Jenny Marra. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Today we focus on the budget, and I think that there are certain principles that we need to focus on at the outset. I think that we all agreed that we want good quality public services and we want a reasonable and fair level of taxation, although the reality is that across this chamber we would disagree in the details of both of them. Another principle is that we have to live within our means. That applies to each one of us as individuals, as families, councils, businesses, Governments and Parliaments. Those who try to live beyond their means will inevitably get into trouble sooner or later. If we want more expenditure in a particular sector, then we have to raise tax or cut spending elsewhere. That is where the Conservatives repeatedly disappoint me by their lack of financial or business understanding. They appear to be the only party here that is against tax and by implication against decent public services, but for them to argue that we should cut tax and spend more on public services is frankly impossible. I know that some of the Conservative MSPs are fairly intelligent and that may or may not include Mr Fraser, so they understand that income must equal expenditure. One has therefore to question their thinking and suggesting that expenditure can go up, but tax can go down at the same time. I am grateful to Mr Mason for giving way. I appreciate that he may have written his speech in advance of this debate, but did he not just hear the intervention from Mr Mackay, the finance secretary, on my colleague Dean Lockhart? Mr Mackay said that the answer to this was to grow the economy. Is that not the answer that Mr Mason needs? Surely if Mr Mackay can argue that, so can the people on those benches. What I did hear Mr Lockhart say was that he wanted more money for Scottish enterprise, and yet he wanted to cut tax at the same time. That is exactly an example of what I was saying, even though I had written it before he spoke. Perhaps more realistic than the Conservatives, Labour does accept that taxes must rise to pay for improved public services. The question for them is how well thought out are their plans. Are they really arguing that no matter how high income tax is raised above the UK level, there will be no displacement of higher earners? Have their plans been examined and validated by any qualified body? I noted that Mr Kelly was calling for all parties to defeat the budget. Well, fair enough, that certainly could be done if the Greens were not supporting it. But what is Mr Kelly's proposal for the next step after that? Will he negotiate with the Conservatives because he won't negotiate with the SNP about tax cuts and service cuts, presumably not? Will he negotiate with the Scottish Government about the top rate, should it be 46, 47, 48, 49 per cent? Is he and our Labour open to real negotiations on real numbers, or does it suit their purposes better to vote against every SNP budget no matter what it contains? Mr Kelly. James Kelly. I thank Mr Mason for taking the intervention. On the principle of fair taxation and fair funding, does he think that it's fair that MSPs look himself will be awarded a tax cut if the budget passes, while councils like Glasgow face millions of pounds in cuts? John Mason. I think that the fundamental problem there is that the UK tax and national insurance system is fundamentally flawed. Why should somebody be paying a normal taxpayer be paying national insurance at 12 per cent and when it goes up it goes down to 2 per cent? That is something that Gordon Brown and his other colleagues could have fixed in the past and have refused to go there so that national insurance remains regressive and causes a huge problem for us in a devolved Parliament. I personally am sympathetic to higher taxes at the top end, and as I said, NIC is regressive, but we have to be careful going from 46 per cent to 50 per cent or something like that. No one in here likes the constraints that we are under, but if we give more to local government it does mean that somewhere else money is going to suffer. Just today I noticed an amendment to a motion from Mr Finlay, deploring that local government has not received more funding since 2013-14. Of course that is partly because we have focused on the health service, but Mr Finlay omits in his motion to say that he thinks that the health service has received too much. Moving on to the Lib Dems, I understand that he would not engage in serious dialogue on the budget without the prospect of independence being taken off the table. I have to say that I think that we should be focusing on the budget today. Of course we disagree on independence and many other subjects, but today we are looking at taxation and expenditure in the different sectors. There is no reason that parties that disagree on independence cannot at least negotiate on income tax rates or NHS expenditure and so on. I wonder if the Lib Dems do not want to engage and take any responsibility for the budget, and an independence referendum is just an excuse to stand aloof. This Parliament was designed not to have a majority, which means that Opposition parties have the privilege of defeating the Government party from time to time. However, it also means that those parties have a responsibility to agree a budget. Sure, there has to be compromise on both sides, but I think that the Lib Dem position is particularly irresponsible. I do not have as long to say what I would like to about some of the Greens' arguments. I am sympathetic to them wanting perhaps to move to a property tax or something like that, as long as there is ability to pay taken into account. I also agree with the Greens' principle that local government should be more able to and more responsible for raising their own resources. At the same time, income and wealth is not spread equally throughout the country, and there always needs to be some redistribution from those who can afford to pay more and probably have less need towards those who cannot afford to pay so much but have the greater need. Jenny Marra, followed by Keith Brown. One of my concerns about today's budget is that our spending in Scotland is not delivering the desired outcomes. Our public health record is getting worse with rising numbers of people reporting mental health problems. Alcoholism remains stubbornly high. Drugs deaths are the highest in Europe. Obesity is increasing all the time. On education, children's attainment at school is a huge problem. It has been four years since any school in Dundee has seen a very good rating in a school inspection, and it is at least 10 years since any Dundee school has received an excellent rating in any of the categories and is in a school inspection. It could be longer, but Education Scotland does not make this information available. As a result of this Government's cuts, those results cannot be unrelated to teachers coming out of schools as a result of SNP budgets. On health, the Fraser of Allander Institute said just in the autumn that health would soon account for half of all public spending in Scotland. The Auditor General reported last year that NHS Scotland was not financially sustainable. Those warnings have not received nearly enough attention in this chamber. I think that that is because of the current political crisis, but they must be addressed—I will in a minute—as they call into question the future existence, I believe, of our health service. The Auditor General has told us that if we continue running the health service in the same way, with the same expectations, the same financial chaos, the same poor governance, the same top heavy management structures, the same disarray and confusion between health boards, IJBs, ADPs, strategic planning partnerships, then the health service in Scotland is simply going to go bust. We need to radically plan a new modern health service that will guarantee that we can still deliver care free at the point of access for generations to come. That is what I think the new health secretary should be focused on, and that is what all progressive energies must be spent on. I will take the cabinet secretary. Jeane Freeman. Will the member recognise that the Audit Scotland report was published before the medium-term financial framework, which I am sure that she will recognise if she has read it, deals with all those issues? Will she also recognise that I have, in the past in this chamber, said that any time Labour wants to come anywhere near me with a radical proposal, I will happily listen to it? Jenny Marra The cabinet secretary knows that I welcomed the medium-term financial framework. She heard me do so in this chamber, but that does not deal with the spending that is on-going in the health service and the whole system that is really creaking at the point. I would be happy to meet her anytime on any of those issues, and she knows that. Let me give a quick stark example. We have doctor vacancies right across the country, but the careers destination report told us that Scotland has the highest number of medical students leaving Scotland, leaving the UK for jobs abroad in Australia and New Zealand. Your Government, cabinet secretary, is paying handsomely to train doctors, but they spend less and less time working in the NHS. That is not good budgeting. Let me turn from health to local government. COSLA has said that councils face cuts of £390 million across Scotland. Derek Mackay has dressed this up with giving some ring-fence funding for specific new work, but it is taken with the other hand from core budgets, which will not help schools and attainment that I mentioned earlier. It is a game of smoke and mirrors that has worked pretty well for this Government over the years, giving with one hand and taking a lot more with the others. He knows that Dundee faces nearly £20 million worth of cuts. The council has not put a lot of detail on those cuts yet, apart from 400 job losses. Having faced years of cuts, the council now finds itself considering compulsory redundancies, despite the fact that its own party, the SNP, has a policy of no compulsory redundancies in the public sector. When I asked her at First Minister's questions, if she would stick by her policy for Dundee council workers, the First Minister distanced herself from her own cuts and said that it was a matter for the council. Workers in the yes city, as the SNP likes to call us, are betrayed by their own First Minister. Derek Mackay Does Jenny Marra have the figure of income tax rise that would be necessary to fund the commitment that James Kelly has tried to make for local government? Surely Jenny Marra, as articulate as she is, has done the numbers here. Derek Mackay knows, as well as I do, that politics is about priorities. He chooses to prioritise things such as the small business bonus and cannot get NHS finances in order. Labour's priorities are local services, and he knows that. He knows the situation in Dundee. He knows that he led the Michelin working group as a result of the 850 job losses and 90 other jobs to go in Tesco in Dundee announced just yesterday. 380 jobs at HMRC closing in 2022. 1,300 posts to go at NHS Tayside. Now 400 council workers under the SNP council, many of whom have voted faithfully for his party. Given the perilous state of the economy in Dundee, I asked Derek Mackay again. He has announced £90 million today, but he knows that that will not mitigate the £20 million of planned cuts in Dundee. Will he go back to Dundee and find a better settlement for our council? 400 jobs are at stake in a city that cannot take any more job losses. Those jobs are in his hands. Will he act? I am happy to support the general principles of the budget bill, including, of course, the general principle of investment in housing, £826 million for affordable homes, including £70 million of an increase on this year. For the first time, the 80,000 homes that we have created since 2007 are included for the first time in new council houses in 25 years after years of Labour selling off council housing and not replacing it. I am also pleased to support the general principle of raising attainment in schools. £180 million, including £120 million, delivered directly to the headteachers to close the gap. It will benefit club managers, and I will make some progress. It will benefit club managers by around £3 million and sterling by over £1.5 million. I also support the general principle of funding for the sterling club managers city deal. We all know how our area was shortchanged by the Tories and let down by the two local Tory MPs, but the Scottish Government will commit £50.1 million to our local communities, including the Scottish International Environment Centre and the Aquaculture Centre in partnership with the sterling university in my constituency. I support the general principles, but I do not want to ignore the general context and the difficult context for this budget. First of all, if we listen to the comments of Bruce Crawford and the Finance Committee, it seems to me that there are real issues for this Parliament to look at in terms of the fiscal framework and its on-going sustainability for this Parliament. It also seems to me that in what everybody must agree is a difficult time for public finances, how smaller councils in particular can cope with those difficulties. I have advocated at COSLA the consideration of issues such as a small council supplement to help in order to make the economies of scale savings that are made more easily by larger council. However, the context for this budget includes the banking crisis and the failure of the Labour Party pre-19 2010. We also have, of course, the Labour Party that first brought us the bedroom tax as its proposal. We also have the legacy of the Labour Party's time and power when the last words of the Labour Government was there is no money left. Worse than that, in particular for our councils, is the legacy of PFI, Labour splurging on the credit card for PFI. Just to give the chamber some idea what that means, in my local council areas, both Cluckmannanshire and Stirling, that means £9 million going for PFI out of a £120 million budget. In Cluckmannanshire and Stirling, it is £11.5 million, which is 14 per cent of the education budget. This is at a time when Labour was buying one school for the price of two. That is what is causing the problems for so many of our councils today. In addition to that, of course, we have seen huge problems for the Scottish Government and legacy, because they have to pay for things like hospitals and so on, which were conducted by Labour for PFI. Those are huge pressures, but in addition to that, the mess left by the Labour Party, we have got what the Tories have done. The Tories have taken Labour's mess and turned it into a £2 trillion national debt. The Tories have created a £2 trillion national debt. They lost the triple A rating for the pound. The one that they said was totally defensible and was guaranteed. They have lost that. They have also, at the same time, splurged on an austerity programme, so they are missing all their targets right through the Osborne rears, right up to now, in terms of public spending, in terms of reducing the deficit, in terms of reducing the national debt. They have still managed to have austerity, create all the hardship that we have seen and ruin the economy at the same time. Of course, they are going to sort that by Brexit. We are making a pretty bad job of doing that. We have seen the shambolic conducts of the economy, both from Labour and from the Tories. That is what we are paying the price of now. That is what is causing so much of this problem. As for the comments of Willie Rennie, I do not know whether he was lucky enough like me to hear the comments yesterday of his former colleague, Margaret Smith, who described his approach to the budget. That of saying to the SNP, stop going on about independence just now, and we will talk to you about the budget, as in her words, bizarre. She said, a liberal democrat said, it was bizarre. Then Gordon Brewer added on top, he said, it is like saying to the liberal democrats, stop being liberal democrats for 18 months. I think that that was unfair because everyone knows that the liberal democrats are not being liberal or democrat for years. The simple fact that John Mason is exactly right to say that this is a pretext that Willie Rennie takes in order to avoid doing anything constructive in relation to the budget. He then went on to talk about different elements of the budget that he liked to see changed. Of course, he never took a single intervention during the course of that speech. He went on to go about different parts of the budget. He had your chance to talk about those parts of the budget, and he chose instead to take a stupid gesture politics approach. That is why you have no input to this budget. It is up to the SNP, as ever. I will not take an intervention for Neil Findlay. Mr Brownsons last minute. I mean my last minute, I would have loved to have taken an intervention from Neil Findlay. It is up to the SNP, both in terms of in government and across the council, to sort out this mess. The response of the Labour leader in my local area in Cluckmannanshire, when I said to him after the election in 2017, because it is a difficult council, small council, do you want to try and join forces, see what you can do jointly to help the council? No, we would rather create fireworks for you. That was the approach of the Labour Party locally. That is the approach of the Labour Party nationally. They have opted out of the process and it is down to the SNP locally and nationally to sort this mess out, and I commend the details and the general principles of the budget, as proposed by the cabinet secretary. Miles Briggs, followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Our Parliament will this year mark its 20th birthday. When this Parliament was reconvened as a nation, we spent £8 billion on our NHS. Today, that stands at £14 billion, almost half of the Scottish Government's budget today. It is important to make some progress first. I am not quite sure why you are interviewing me straight away. Calm down for a bit. It is important to set the context for this budget today. Thanks to the UK Conservative Government decisions, we see £20 billion a year in additional funding for our NHS UK. What does that mean for Scotland? This year alone, it will see the Scottish Government receive the biggest cash injection in the history of our NHS. We should all celebrate that. That will equate to £2 billion in additional spending for our NHS by 2023, as we as a nation look to improve our health and social care services across Scotland. It is yet again another example of the benefit and strength of sharing our resources across our nations in the UK. I am happy to. Derek Mackay That case, while Miles Briggs explained to the chamber why it is, he will be voting against spending those Barnett consequentials on the health service and voting against extending free personal care. Miles Briggs Let me educate the finance secretary whatever title he has today. It was by working with Amanda Capel after my election to bring forward the private member's bill that has forced this incompetent Government to bring forward personal care. On the issue of campaigning, perhaps the finance secretary would like to tell the chamber why he and George Adam and also Mr Arthur in this chamber are only here because they stood on a platform to save the children's ward at the Royal Paisley hospital. How is that campaign going for you, finance secretary? You sold out your constituents on that as well, but we shouldn't be pretending that the SMP— The point of order, Tom Arthur. The fit of rage. The member has just lied in the chamber that that is a blatant untruth. He will not be able to produce any evidence for what he has just said, because there is no evidence. If a word lie is unparliamentary when I'm sure my meaning is clear— I understand that Mr Arthur may be annoyed about that. The particular words were not used. Mr Briggs, I haven't finished. I would ask all members to take care in how they respond to different issues. I would ask Mr Briggs to continue, please. We should not pretend that the SMP finances and our health and social care service finances are stable with the budget. The past year alone has seen major challenges for NHS boards. Scottish Government has had to write off £150 million in NHS board debt. When it comes to NHS board funding, it is clear that, in the small print of the budget, SMP ministers are willing to yet again continue to short-change NHS boards. Scottish Government budget, as it stands today, is simply not fit for purpose and continues to short-change NHS Lothian to the tune of £11.6 million. Willi Rennie? Miles Briggs will be as concerned as I am to discover that the Greens deal today with the SMP involves a cut of £50 million to the integrated joint boards. That is not something that Derek Mackay told us about and I think that he should be clear to the chamber exactly what this deal actually means. Miles Briggs. I absolutely agree with that point. I think that already we are seeing the small print of this budget just showing where this money has come from for the Green deal. How Lothian's two green MSPs will be able to justify a cut for Lothian, we will find out. Andy Wightman. Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to clarify for Mr Briggs and Mr Rennie, the £50 million is coming from unring fencing funds that were previously ring fenced. This is something that I am sure a number of councils will shortly welcome in Scotland and indeed have asked for. Much of that finance will be used to pay for precisely social and personal care that, instead of being mandated for an integrated joint board, councils will be used in ways that they see fit. That is something that they have asked for and it is something that was clear in our budget negotiations that we need less ring fencing. Councils have been asking. Miles Briggs. I think that that is the longest history lesson and also it is a cut in funding. For our social care services, a city that he represents here, which is facing such debt in social care, how he will justify that to his voters we will have to see. Just today, ministers down in England have outlined how they are investing in a 10-year plan for our health service. I very much agree with what Jenny Marra said today, because SNP ministers should look towards Audit Scotland's outlining where we need to go with our health service. Every year, we have reports on the state of our NHS, as well as the review of health and social care integration, which points to the immediate action that is needed if we are going to move forward our NHS to make it fundamentally change but also deliver it for the long-term. SNP ministers have shown little progress to date in delivering that over the last 12 years. How can the member justify campaigning for something and then voting against funding it? Miles Briggs. I do not agree that this budget is fit for Scotland. That is why I will not be supporting it. When I was elected, I said that I would bring forward that member's bill. I did just that. After a long wait, the Scottish Government agreed to my request. We forced this Government to, and can I just say on this one issue? Frank's law is a perfect example of the positive difference 31 Conservative MSPs have made in opposition. Just imagine the positive difference that we can make to our NHS with a Ruth Davidson-led Scottish Government. Presiding Officer, this is not a budget for Scotland. It is a budget from a tired and stale SNP Government, which has run out of ideas and is running out of no vision for our country, our economy. Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland can do better than this. Tom Arthur, followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I think that the speech that we have just had from Miles Briggs illustrates what is at the heart of this debate. Whether one wants to engage in cheap politicking or one wants to take responsibility in a Parliament of minorities, Miles Briggs raised the issue of ward 15 at the RAH. He uttered a falsehood in the chamber, a platform that I did not campaign on. I have had quite enough of Mr Briggs for one afternoon. I will halt this for just a minute. This is not about a personal argument. Could you state your case in relation to that, Mr Arthur, and be careful about your language during this political debate? The case is very important because it gets to the heart. In the case of ward 15 at the RAH, the universal clinical opinion was that that was the correct decision. Was it a challenging one for politicians? Was it a challenging one for service users? Yes, but it was the universal clinical decision. That was a decision taken to benefit the people who use that hospital. Ultimately, as politicians, we have to make a judgement. However, we listen to the professionals, we listen to the experts that I know that the Tories have contempt for, or we just engage in cheap politicking and scaremongering. I ultimately feel that I much rather support a Government that takes responsible decisions, but we see the converse. Of course, when Mr Briggs has an opportunity, when his Conservative colleagues have an opportunity to vote for Frank's law, for extending free personal care, to deliver, what do they choose to do? No, they choose to vote against it. I say that talk is cheap, but standing up, taking responsibility, taking responsibility as a parliamentarian, living up to the responsibilities that we have as MSPs, as legislators in this place, it is something clearly that Tory party are absolutely and completely incapable of doing, and that is why they will never be close to office in this country. I have to say what a stark contrast to the way that the Greens have comported themselves in these negotiations. Now, to be honest, there are differences of opinion that exist between myself and my party in that of the Green parties, but they have shown the maturity to go and engage in a constructive process. However, what is it that the SNP and the Green party have in common beyond independence? They are both parties that are not looking over their shoulders to the remote control masters at Westminster. They are parties that will put the priorities of Scotland first. It is a shame that we celebrate the 20th anniversary of devolution that the Tories have reverted back to their hard-line unionist stance. What a shame it is to see the Liberal Democrats a key champion for this place to allow their unionism to trump their willingness to engage practically and with the Government to go and bring forward budget proposals that will benefit all of our constituents. It is a shame, but I would just gently caution the Liberal Democrats. The last time they chose not to engage with the Scottish Government because of independence was following the election in 2007. The consequences for them after that were going from being ferried about in ministerial cars to being able to fit the entire group in the back of a taxi. I think that the people of Scotland will remember their actions today as once again showing petty party, ultra-unionist politics before serving their constituents and the people of Scotland. As for the Labour Party, my goodness, my goodness. I was hoping to address my comments to the head of the Labour Party, that being Alex Rowley, who is the only one who seems to have a brain in the party and a willingness to come forward and to engage constructively. However, have we seen that today? No. We have seen, as has been described, another ending list of requests and demands, but no account of how the expensive act should be met. It is a shame because I know one-on-one in my conversations with many members of the Labour Party that we share similar values. We want to see a progressive, more socially democratic Scotland. I am sorry, Mr Finlay, that I have got far too much to say, any other time I would be happy to, but not this afternoon. It is a crying shame that they are not willing to engage. I respect at the Labour Party. Can we stop again? Mr Arthur, please sit down. I just heard a word used by Mr Finlay, a member of this Parliament, that I do not believe is appropriate to be used. Mr Finlay, I did not ask you to retort. All I am saying is that I heard a word that, in my opinion, as Presiding Officer of this session, is not appropriate. It is for me to decide appropriateness. I think that you know the word, Mr Finlay, because you are the one who used it. Mr Finlay, I do not accept that. I believe that you know exactly what you said. I would ask that, if you have genuinely forgotten, Mr Swinney, would you please be quiet? Mr Swinney, would you please be quiet? Mr Finlay, if you are unaware of the word, you can ask your colleagues or you can check the official report when it is published. You will have to accept my word at the moment for my feeling it inappropriate. Can I ask that the temperature of this debate? I am speaking at the moment. Can I ask that the temperature of this debate be lowered because it is becoming ridiculous? If I use the word that was inappropriate, I would draw that word. I would hope that there would be a level of consistency in applying the rules in the Parliament, given that Mr Arthur accused people of lying and accused the Labour group of people with no brains. I would have thought that that was as serious an accusation as the word I think you are referring that I may have used. Mr Hepburn and anyone else who is here, could I please ask for silence? Mr Finlay, I have listened to what you have said. I dealt with the point of order earlier on that Mr Arthur made. I have subsequently stopped proceedings to say that I would like a bit of respect shown on all sides. I would reiterate that I would like to start this debate again because it is an extremely important debate for everybody in here and for everyone who is listening in. I believe that you had a minute left, Mr Arthur. Please resume. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, in a spirit of collegiate goodwill, will withdraw the use of that term, which I accept was inappropriate, but I am disappointed at the Labour Party because I know that in many areas we share a lot in common ground. I appreciate that they are vigorously opposed to Scottish independence just as I am passionately a favourite of that, but that should not be a barrier. I say to Mr Finlay that, had there been substantial engagement with the Government and then the Labour Party said, I am sorry, that we cannot find common ground, we cannot agree a joint budget. Fair enough, I can respect that, but there is not a concrete set of budget proposals put forward. When the Cabinet Secretary for Finance challenged Mr Kelly to name what his tax rates would have to be to meet his spending demands, he was unable to do it. When he did it to Jenny Marra, Jenny Marra was unable to do it. I hope that, if it is indeed Mr Finlay who is going to be summing up for the Labour Party, he will set straight out exactly what his spending plans are and how much he believes that the SFC would forecast he would generate, because if there is an unwillingness to do that, there is an unwillingness to take this process seriously. In that note, Presiding Officer, I will conclude. Neil Findlay followed by Jordan McAlpine. Presiding Officer, that was a councillor for nine years in West Lothian. I was immensely proud of the work that we did and the services that council workers delivered supported by the progressive policy agenda that we pursued. In 2006, the council was named UK Council of the Year. That was because we delivered high-quality, efficient and value for money public services, so well-run, so efficient and so good value that, since then, the council has had £92 million cut from its budget. This year, it will have another £4.7 million giver, take, whatever Mr Mackay has just chipped in. I can tell what you are going to say, because I have got a copy of your speech here. I do not know why you sent it to Scottish ministers. By the way, the figures are now all wrong in the speech, but it is causally wrong when they welcome the announcements that I have made today in relation to local government, which they have. It is causally wrong, and Mr Finlay is here to change his speech, and he can cut out the person who insults him. Mr Finlay, I think that he has got you there, Mr Finlay. Mr Mackay, I have to say that the chamber will know about my computing skills. It most certainly is not the first time that I have shared information with the many members across the chamber. I absolutely assure you that it will not be the last given my computer skills. I am afraid that Mr Mackay did not update us on the new figures. Of course, it is not just West Lothian that cuts like that are happening to it. It is across every council and the country affecting every single community, but it is always the poorest, the low paid, and it is always the most vulnerable who are damaged. This year, Mr Mackay got my speech and said that he would have to make £41 million of cuts. We see projects such as the Pilton community health project in real danger of closing, because its grant has been withdrawn. What a state of affairs when a health project in one of the most needy communities in the country is going to shut because of your cuts. For giving way, I think that the closure of the Pilton community health project is one of the most dangerous and short-sighted things that I have seen in my history in this place. I wonder whether the finance secretary knows that this is an organisation that supports women in abusive relationships and people in temporary accommodation, and that we will pay 10 times what it costs to keep that service open, piecing their lives back together when this place shuts. In the time that the member has been on his feet, we have heard from Adam McVay, the SNP leader of the SNP council, who has agreed that it is no longer £41 million worth of cuts that Edinburgh faces, but £33 million worth of cuts. Does he think that that is still a good deal for the citizens of this city? 33 million cuts and the Pilton project is still going to be closed under your proposals. I am sure that the member sitting beside you is absolutely delighted to hear that he will vote today for that project to be cut. It is an absolute disgrace. If we look at Midlothian, one of the smallest councils in the country, we need to cut 4.1 million. Council officers have put forward a list of proposals. All school crossing patrols cut, three libraries, three community centres and Murray, 7.3 million of cuts, almost the entire adult education service gone, class sizes gone up to 30, street cleaning reduced, charges rising, in Dundee, 18 million being cut, 400 jobs going in Dundee, community facilities closing down. In Glasgow, one of the areas with some of the worst health and educational inequality in Europe, sports centres closing, community golf courses closing, swimming pools closing, seven libraries could close. No, thank you. In Glasgow, across the country, we have lost classroom assistance and class sizes are rising. Nursery teachers are being removed from schools. In SNP Falkirk Council, schools are being told to cut back budgets, a half a million cut at Warburh High School on its own, and I hope that you are enjoying my speech, Mr Swinney. Clack Maninshire is talking of closing schools and reducing the school week, something that Mr Mackay tried in Paisley when he was the council leader 10 years ago. Well done, Mr Mackay. You are shortening the school week in Clack Maninshire 10 years on. What a great legacy that is. No, thank you. The education is supposed to be Nicola Sturgeon's top priority. If that is how they treat their top priority, is it any wonder that other services that are not a priority are threatened by disappearing altogether? Not barely a mention of schools in Mr Mackay's speech, and yet it is supposed to be the top priority. I have to say across the public services, but particularly in councils, that the cupboard is bare. The cuts are not through to the bone, they are through to the marrow. They are eating away at the glue that holds society together because it is the lunch clubs, it is the youth work, it is the libraries, community centres, it is the binmen, the cleaners and the nursery staff who help to civilise our society. They are being attacked by a Scottish Government. That is utter contempt for councillors and councils instead, once they centralise and dictate what goes on. He is just dictating again the level of council tax rates that Scotland's councils can raise. Can you imagine the hills of abuse about a power grab that would come if any UK Government attempted to dictate policy in areas that were devolved and yet this is what has been done week in, week out to Scotland's councils? No, thank you. According to the Accounts Commission, the Scottish Government budget has fallen 1.6.5 per cent, but it has passed on 6.92 per cent to local government. I have got the cheek to say that this is a fair settlement. Finally, can I say this? Listen to this from the green website. Like last year, Greens will not vote for a budget that cuts local government funding. If there was no cuts last year, why are our councils on our knees shedding jobs and closing services? I agree with Mr Harvie when he said that the cuts are worse than thatcher. The difference is that tonight I will vote against thatcherite cuts. Tim and his party will vote for them. We have absolutely no spare time left, so if you come under the six minutes, please. John McAlpine, followed by Liz Smith. I congratulate the cabinet secretary and the Greens on reaching that agreement, which brings stability to all our public services at a time when there is total chaos elsewhere, particularly at Westminster. None of that is easy, because the value of Scotland's block grant from Westminster has shrunk by £2 billion in real terms since 2010. That cut cannot be wished away, but it can be mitigated. That is what the public expects of their politicians. It is a lesson to the other Opposition parties on what can be achieved with constructive engagement, because the Greens, as we have heard, were the only party that came forward with a coherent plan to back up their demands. I welcome the £187 million extra spending for local authorities. Labour, in particular, will have questions to answer as to why it is voting against a budget that gives councils that additional funding. It will also have to explain why it is voting against a budget that gives our NHS above inflation increases. That budget delivers almost £3.25 billion extra for health. Under the SNP, since 2006-07, the annual health resource budget has increased by 4.8 billion, or 52.6 per cent. Labour in September said that the NHS needed to get the resources that it needs, and particularly for NHS staff. That budget continues the commitment to lift the public sector pay cap, including a 3 per cent rise for all those earning less than £36,500 a year. How does Labour justify or even explain voting against that? The Conservatives also claimed care about NHS funding in setting out their budget priorities on October 2018. The Scottish Conservatives called for the Barnett consequentials from the UK to go direct to the NHS and social care in Scotland, but those consequentials, of course, have been reduced by the UK by £55 million this year. Our budget takes the necessary steps to reinstate that particular reduction in its entirety, but the Tories will vote against it. Miles Briggs. Can she not find it in her heart to realise that this is £2 billion in additional funding for our Scottish NHS, coming from the UK Government, or is it just all about grievance and division? The UK Government promised to pass on all the consequentials, and it reneged on that promise, which the Scottish Conservatives asked the Government to deliver on. The Government has more than delivered on, so it really should be Miles Briggs who is hanging his head in shame. Mr Briggs, as we have already heard, has campaigned consistently for Frank's law, and I campaigned for it too. I supported that campaign, but we have now heard that he is going to be voting against Frank's law when he votes against this budget. The Tories are also going to be voting against the 800 more GPs, which this budget will deliver over the next 10 years, and it is only last autumn that we heard Jackson Carlaw demanding more money for primary care. We are getting 800 more GPs, and the Tories are going to vote against it. They are also going to be voting against increases in carers allowance, something else that Miles Briggs has called for. In Government, the SNP has already delivered the first two payments of carers allowance supplement, and this budget allocates another 37 million to support it. Miles Briggs said that carers are counting on this budget, while carers might be counting on it, but the Tories are voting against it. On the other side of the chamber, Monica Lennon has been campaigning, like my college, Elaine Martin, to extend sanitary provision for women and girls in schools, colleges and universities. The budget tackles period poverty, not just in educational establishments, but across a range of settings in the public, third and private sector. If Monica Lennon votes against the budget, she votes against that extra funding for period poverty. I could name other Opposition members who have campaigned passionately. I always believed sincerely for other worthy causes. Willy Rennie, for example, has articulated the case for more mental health spending for young people in particular, and he has articulated that case well. Diligently, the budget will increase direct investment in mental health by £27 million, taking overall funding to an incredible £1.1 billion, including specialist treatment for young people, an expanded distress intervention programme, and developing community services to support the mental wellbeing of 5 to 24-year-olds. If Willy Rennie votes against the budget today, he votes against delivering mental health services to those young people, something that he has campaigned for so sincerely or so he thought. He also votes against an extra £500 million for early years in childcare, something else that he has campaigned for. The member is in her last minute. It will shortly be concluding. Not just in this Parliament, but indeed going right back to the last Parliament, I mean that he must have done it well. I still remember some of the speeches he made on that particular subject, but he is going to be voting against money for early years. I could go on because Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat benches are populated by politicians who are all about to ditch their principles and vote against everything that they have spent the last year campaigning for. The electorate will judge them. I must say that they must be very grateful to the Government and to the Greens that they have come together to save the other opposition parties from the judgment of the electorate. Liz Smith, followed by Willie Coffey, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Several speakers this afternoon have spoken about why the context of the budget is so crucial. The convener of the finance committee called on members to seek some consensus on at least a few issues. I will come to his comment in just a minute. I hope that the cabinet secretary for finance was listening as well. He seemed to be implying earlier this afternoon that it is the job of the opposition parties to explain why his unpopular decisions have come about. Of course, he is absolutely right to challenge ourselves and the other political parties to explain their policy commitments and, in the next few weeks, our own sums in relation to the budget, but he has to be prepared to answer some key questions himself. Most especially, what evidence can he possibly point to to dispute the fact that, following the chancellor's announcements in October last year and the addition of the extra £950 million to the Scottish block grant thanks to the Barnett consequentials, the finance secretary's own budget is up in real terms. A fact confirmed by the Scottish Parliament's own statistical office, many business organisations and what grounds can he continue to tell us that it is Westminster's fault when his budget has gained more money as a result of Westminster actions? More than happy to explain again, as I have done at committee in other places and as backed up by the Fraser of Allander Institute, that we are passing on the Barnett consequentials and, because of the offsetting from UK Government reductions to other portfolios in relation to Barnett consequentials, that is what leads to the real-term reductions to all other portfolios excluding health. That is the matter of fact that is explained how I can say what I have said and it does not detract from the fact that, over the 10-year period, our budget for fiscal resource for day-to-day services has been reduced by £2 billion. Thank you for the opportunity of making that point once again. Liz Smith. The cabinet secretary has just confirmed that his budget is actually up. Could I ask him perhaps to explain why he thinks that increasing the tax burden in Scotland is going to help economic growth and investment in the Scottish economy, which we so desperately need? Of course. A fair and more progressive tax system that is investing in our economy is about quality of life and a race to the top and the quality of life, not a race to the bottom in tax, and that has ensured that our economic indicators are all strong at this point. Liz Smith. Cabinet secretary, can I ask, have you actually read what the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been saying to you? Sorry, Cabinet secretary, I've already taken two interventions. I have to caution Ms Smith that you can't make up your time, so remember that. I can make up my time. No, you can't. That's all right. I think that I've probably made sufficient points already. I think that one good point is to hear that local authorities will get back at least some of the cash that they have taken away in the past few years. When it comes to education, the cabinet secretary knows full well that local authorities of every political hue have been having to take extremely tough decisions, like shortening the school day or getting rid of their school crossing patrol or increasing fees for music tuition or making redundant a classroom assistant. Cabinet secretary, that is exactly what has been happening across all our local authorities. I want to ask the cabinet secretary about a specific issue in his agreement with the Greens, which seems to suggest that there will be greater autonomy for local government and is conservative in principle. I don't see any particular problem with that, but it does raise an issue about the choices that local government will have to make. In the context of what the Scottish Government's policy is when it comes to childcare, the flagship policy on childcare, can I ask whether that childcare policy will stay as it is, or whether there will have to be choices made about that for local authorities? I think that that is a key point for parents. Thank you for that clarification, cabinet secretary. However, what would be happening if there is greater autonomy to be given to local authorities? What happens when they start to take decisions where they feel that, because of financial pressures, they cannot deliver some of the choices that they have been told to do? Cabinet secretary, it is a proper debate, but you know that you are losing time. If I keep you getting questions posed, I am trying to answer. No, absolutely. I am not complaining. I am just reminding the member that there is no spare time and I have just used some up. Cabinet secretary. I am very happy to take those interventions, because the points that we are asking are absolutely crucial to parents and teachers across Scotland. The policy is fully funded. It continues to be ring-fenced in the fashion that I have described and the commitment. We are also statutory commitments, so we will deliver the childcare policy. It is just strange that the Tories will be voting against it tonight. Cabinet secretary, can I be absolutely clear about this? When it comes to the delivery of the policy, are you effectively saying that it is the Scottish Government that will be delivering those 1140 hours, or are you now agreeing to allow local authorities to make choices about how they spend that money? Cabinet secretary. That is the most interesting thing that I have said repeatedly. We have a childcare policy, we are going to deliver it, we are funding it and we are going to go on with it, and it is only the Tories that are opposing it in terms of not providing the means to pay for it in the budget this evening. Cabinet secretary, I think that I rest my case. I am not going to continue this debate. I do rest my case, First Minister, because there is a fundamental point of principle here. In the months to come, I think that you will have a lot of answers to make on this. Thank you. I call Willie Coffey, the last speaker in the open debate. We move to closing speeches then, Willie Coffey. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. It has been interesting to hear the various unionist positions in the budget, the priorities, the demands and even some of the bad-tempered whingies, moans and curts that are thrown in as usual. However, what we will have to remember is that we are arguing over the same cake and how to divide it up for the good of the people that we represent. If one party wants a bigger slice for their chosen priority, then it means that a smaller slice is the result for somebody else. It is incumbent, I think, on parties when making these demands for bigger slices, that they also set out who is to get the smaller portion, otherwise the public will see through that. While there is no mechanism in Parliament to present an alternative budget for approval, surely it is possible to set out a range of costed spending plans, showing the public where that party might spend more, but it also has to show what area would get less, because, as everyone knows in here, the budget has to balance at the end of the day. The Scottish Government's budget provides Scotland with the stability, sadly lacking at Westminster, while the current administration down there teeters in the brink of collapse on a near daily basis, unable to stick to the same plan that it had last week or the week before. As some of my colleagues have noted earlier, this budget provides a huge shot in the arm for our NHS in education and offers a real-terms increase to our councils in both revenue and capital. The news earlier that the cabinet secretary can use additional consequentials to provide further help to local government is very welcome. It means that, for my council in East Ayrshire, we will receive between an extra £2 million and £4 million on top of the proposed allocation. That means that we, at least, will not need to cut the proposed allocations in the budget that we have already made to achieve that. The health and sport budget alone is now standing at over £14 billion, as has been mentioned by several members. That is nearly a third of the whole cake, Presiding Officer. The NHS is receiving an extra £729 million more next year if the budget is approved. In communities and local government, that includes paying our teachers, we will get nearly £12 billion. The finance portfolio, which is mostly NHS and teacher pensions, will get around £5 billion. Education and skills, which includes funding for our colleges, will get about £3.5 billion. I list those, Presiding Officer, because those priority areas are pretty big slices of the total cake and account for about £35 billion of the total £42 billion available. Finally, the great news from the Scottish Government yesterday of the £100 million investment to support the Ayrshire growth deal was matched at long last by the UK Government this morning. It will be interesting to see if my Ayrshire Tory colleague John Scott will support the £100 million for Ayrshire or vote against it at the end of today. All of that is delivered with more than half of all Scots paying less income tax than the rest of the UK and 99 per cent paying the same or less than we did last year. On the proposal for a share of around £5 billion of capital investment, that means, for residents in East Ayrshire, another 300 new council houses and six new schools, which will be warmly welcomed in that part of the world. With equality at the heart of our budget in contrast to the policies that are seen in the rest of the UK, we are doing our best to protect the poorest in our society, with £435 million of assistance directed from Social Security Scotland to those who need it the most. Those are just the first steps in the delivery of even more benefits to support people in society as the Scottish Government looks to tackle inequality and to reduce poverty. I know that, in my constituency, more than 1,500 carers benefited from the carers supplement, and that will only improve with the young carers grant provided for in this budget. Lastly, in one of my own areas of interest, the budget continues to support our superfast broadband project, with £600 million going into that programme. Despite the full responsibility for that line with the Tory Government, which has put in a paltry £21 million, if we leave it to them, it would take decades before we reached 100 per cent coverage. The budget offers something for every person in Scotland, from the youngest to the oldest, our teachers, NHS workers and patients, college staff, fire and police officers, local government staff or students, those who work and those who are doing their best to find it. It encourages Scottish businesses to grow with the most competitive business rates environment in the UK. It protects our most vulnerable citizens as best we can from the worst actions of a Tory Government that are getting worse by the day. All of that will be put at risk if the budget is not approved. The Scottish Government has listened to and incorporated many of the suggestions from Opposition members. No less than 16 of them asked for something, whether it was in Frank's law, support for town centres or even more help for Ayrshire. Having got most, if not all, of their wishes in the budget, are they really going to vote against the things that they themselves asked for? We will know in a few more minutes if they really are that irresponsible in the support of the budget proposals that are in front of us today. We now move to closing speeches. This is not a standalone budget. It builds on cuts of past years. It must also be viewed in the context that the SNP Government has been in power for 11 years. We need to look at that. 11 years on, in satisfaction with Scotland, has hit a 15-year low. Clearly, there is no prospect of Labour's request for reduced fares for our constituents. 11 years on, homelessness is on their eyes and people are dying on our streets. 11 years on, Scotland's colleges have 120,000 fewer students, and that means that in our constituencies, women, returners and disabled people are losing their courses. Jenny Marra outlined very well the problems in her health service to the SNP Government. Those are far from the only failures of the SNP Government, because right now, in 21st century Scotland, 1 in 4 children are living in poverty. Frankly, that is shocking. The SNP's answer to that is to reduce child poverty by 2030. That will be over 20 years since the SNP became the Government. I doubt if there will still be the Government then. Today, of course, we found out that the Government has only met four of the 15—I think that we want to listen to what the poverty adviser said today—recommendations from the poverty adviser. The SNP is the Government of a country where food banks have become the norm. Children living in poverty need action now, and this Government has got the power to implement Labour's budget requests and increase child benefit by £5 a week. Give me five asked families what they would do with that £5 top-up. One mum said, I've got two kids, so £10 a week extra could allow us to buy fresh fruit and hopefully not rely on food banks so much. I usually do, but Derek Mackay has said that the Labour Party hasn't been engaging, and he knows fine well that James Kelly has met him on several occasions. He's not listening to Labour MSPs, to trade unions and churches in poverty campaigners, and he's not listening to councils. No, thank you. I don't think I will. Eleven years on, the SNP has the powers to mitigate the Dickensian Tory welfare policy, and it could support Labour, and it could use this budget to end the two-child cap and the repugnant rape clause, but it seems that that is not a priority. Eleven years on, and life expectancy in Scotland has dropped to the lowest in the UK for the first time in 35 years, with significant differences in local authority areas. In North Lanarkshire, that means a variation of more than 10 years compared to parts of Perth and Cynros, and that brings me to the state of councils eleven years on from the SNP taking power. Neil Findlay and indeed Kezia Dugdale made the point that it is not possible to deliver the services that their communities need with a continued reduction in year-on-year funding and a depleted workforce, and it is not going to be possible to reduce poverty when the biggest employers in communities are being forced to shed their staff, and those job losses are undoubtedly the fault of this SNP Government. For households with the least, local government services are needed the most. As Jenny Marra also alluded to, spinning ring fence funding as an increase really is just a big coin. Now, Spice confirmed at the first stage of this budget that the local government settlement was a real-time decrease of £319 million. Let's remember that that was only to stand still. 90 million core funding does nothing to fill that gap. It does not fill that gap. Eleven years on, in preventing poverty and reducing its impact, surely must mean properly investing in local government and not continuing to slash funding. Derek Mackay said at committee that every council has to make efficiencies, but there are no more efficiencies. Joe Cullinane, leader of North Ayrshire, asks if SNP run fall cut is instructing its head teachers to write to parents about 5 million reduction in school budgets because it is going to mean a more efficient education for their children. In case Brown mentioned to Clackmannanshire, Joe Cullinane asks if SNP run Clackmannanshire, considering closing primary schools and reducing the high school week, is doing that because it is going to be more efficient. If SNP controlled money councillor were more efficient, could they achieve a balanced budget? Presiding Officer, this week I met North Ayrshire Labour councillors to hear first hand their deep concerns. They cannot sustain the services that communities need with this freshest year-on-year financial assault from this SNP Government. The jam tomorrow deal with the Greens does nothing to change that. Jim Loog, let's listen to Jim Loog, NLC leader and a letter to MSPs. The revenue budget for North Ayrshire, as with all local authorities, has been significantly reduced over the last 11 years. That has meant a shortfall of more than £230 million in funding over the last decade, which has had a devastating impact on the delivery of our services—£230 million. In answer to Derek Mackay's council tax announcement, Jim Loog tells us that a budget settlement that gives a tax cut to Government ministers, while forcing councils to increase council tax on hardworking people across North Ayrshire to pay for their services, is not a fair deal. The Scottish Government has quadrupled the austerity that it has received from Westminster, and we can all see the impact cuts have had on our crucial services. 11 years on, those on-going cuts to councils are cuts to communities. That is worse than the fact. Years in the same old Tories want to make sure that the rich do not pay more tax. In answer to Willie Coffey, if I might, unison tells us that a different and better budget is possible by expanding the fiscal envelope. The Government needs to think again and bring back a budget that properly invests in communities and puts income in the pockets of families to tackle poverty. The Scottish Labour Party will not support— No, I would like to go a bit longer. Thank you very much. I will now call Adam Tompkins to close to the Conservative. Seven minutes, please. The context in which the budget is set is that the Scottish Government's budget is going up by more than £1 billion in cash terms this year. That translates into a real terms increase of nearly 2 per cent. As we heard earlier from Miles Briggs, it includes more than £2 billion of increased spending for the NHS in Scotland by 2023. That is the context in which the SNP seeks tonight to pass yet another pay more, get less budget, ensuring that Scotland will remain the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. The second element of context in which this budget is set is the context of subdued growth. The SNP's economy in Scotland lags behind UK economic growth and is forecast to do so every year until not merely the end of this Parliament, but well into the middle of the next Parliament. While SFC growth forecasts for Scotland are going down, OBR growth forecasts for the rest of the United Kingdom are going up. That costs businesses, but it also costs the public services dear. Earlier this afternoon, we heard the cabinet secretary say that in an independent Scotland he would grow the economy to pay for the cuts that the European Union would impose on him, but he should be growing the Scottish economy now. The third contextual element that needs to be understood to understand this evening's budget is the SNP's broken manifesto commitment not to increase income tax rates. Seeking election, Nicola Sturgeon said in 2016, and I quote, that we will freeze the basic rate of income tax throughout the next Parliament to protect those on low and middle incomes. In the rest of the United Kingdom, everyone earning up to £50,000 a year pays income tax at 20 per cent. Under the SNP's Scotland by contrast, everyone earning more than £25,000 will pay income tax at 21 per cent. That is a broken promise. That, Presiding Officer, is the true foundation of this year's budget, broken nationalist promises. The choice made by the finance secretary is not merely to persist with this, but to extend the income tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, meaning that all those in Scotland earning between £43,000 and £50,000 will face a marginal tax rate of 53 per cent. It means that public servants such as police sergeants, senior nurse managers and principal teachers will be paying more tax in Scotland than their counterparts south of the border, in some cases more than £1,500 a year more. There is growing evidence that this is already causing tax flight. People who would otherwise come here to live and work are put off because of the SNP's tax hikes, and people are already here seeking to leave to escape the SNP's punitive tax rates. This is already costing the Scottish Government tax revenue. Pay more, get less. What we need, Presiding Officer, is a budget that increases the numbers of Scottish taxpayers, not one that puts them off coming here, puts them off staying here or drives them away. The finance committee heard a week or so ago in evidence on the budget that, for every 20 new additional rate taxpayers that we attract to Scotland, the Scottish Government receives £1 million in additional tax receipts. Yet, when challenged about this in the committee, the cabinet secretary could identify not a single government policy designed to increase such jobs in the Scottish economy. It is higher wages that drive increased tax revenues, Presiding Officer, not tax hikes. Then we come to today's deal with the Greens. Mr Harvey has proved himself once again, hasn't he, to be something of a cheap date, selling out his own voters? He said that he would not vote for a budget that did not contain significant reform of local government finance. What we see today is that that has kicked into the long grass, given yet another cross-party working group. As Mr Rennie said, Mr Harvey has settled to be the vice convener of the car parking working group. That is the price of his deal on the budget today, and I wonder if even that might be a little beyond his abilities. The Greens said that they would refuse to vote for a budget that cuts local authority resources. Another Green promise betrayed. Mr Mackayon, introducing his deal with the Greens this afternoon, said that his budget was one that would create certainty and stability. The only certainty is that we will have ever higher taxes for as long as the nationalist alliance between the SNP and the Green Party is allowed to dominate. He said that this would be a budget that would prepare our economy for the challenges of the future—or no, it prepares our economy for the challenges of future tax rises, future tax rises with regard to tourism, future tax rises with regard to hotel space, future tax rises with regard to car parking, future tax rises with regard to council tax, even future tax rises with regard to the bags that we use to carry our shopping home in. Is it any wonder that this afternoon, Presiding Officer, the FSB, the Federation of Small Business in Scotland, has said this, and I quote, this deal with the Greens, this deal will erode the business community's trust in this administration. Ministers repeatedly promised that they would not pave the way for tourism taxes without industry support. They are breaking that promise today, unquote. Presiding Officer, we will be voting against this budget tonight. We will be voting against unnecessary tax rises. We will be voting against a budget that does nothing for growth. We will be voting against a budget that does nothing for business, and we will be voting against a budget that punishes Scotland's hardworking families. I think that it's fair to say that, in some days in Parliament, we maybe don't have the most fulsome of debates. It's also true to say that I don't always have early sight to opposition speeches, but I thank Neil Findlay for the early sight of his speech earlier. Not right now. Allow me to make—well, okay, okay. I have to say to Mr Mackay that, given my IT skills, this one doesn't even make the top 10, but I am an exalted company, as Bruce Crawford reminded me earlier, that he sent the entire programme for government to the whole Parliament in years gone past. Neil Findlay has said that his IT skills aren't very good, and neither is his group's budgeting skills either, as we've seen from the course of the day. Angela Constance, I thought, helped to establish some calm and tone to the budget debate and explored the issue about how we can be constructive, for example, exploring the use of financial transactions to credit unions, and it's that kind of constructive suggestion that I can take away. She did talk about her affection for me, and I can't say that I've felt the love from the entire chamber this afternoon, and I am indeed—I am slightly resistant to Angela Constance's charms for reasons well understood by the chamber. In terms of this minority government, it's important that we—that's a slow burning joke, by the way—in terms of this minority government, I think that it's important for our country to find the necessary compromise to provide the stability, the certainty, the economic stimulus and, really importantly, the sustainability of our public services. If ever there was a time for this Parliament to be responsible with the challenges that we face, surely it is now, and it is tonight, for the sake of public services in this country. I'll take an intervention. James Kelly. Hi, Mr Kye, for taking the intervention. In terms of sustainability of public services, we started the afternoon with £319 million cut to local council budgets. You announced £90 million in direct funding and that still leaves a massive black hole of over £200 million that councils are going to have to find. That's punishment for local communities, surely. Derek Mackay. At draft budget, I proposed a real-terms increase for local government. The decisions that I'm taking today enhance that offer to local government. No wonder, cosless spokespeople are right now welcoming the movement from the Scottish Government about the deal to local government. We are investing in the economy, in education and in the environment, too. I heard the Conservative talk about broken promises. The biggest financial challenge that we face right now and the biggest challenge to our public services and to our people is, of course, Brexit. Brought upon Scotland by the party that said that you had to vote no in the Scottish independence referendum to keep Scotland in Europe, and now we are being dragged out against our will in the most reckless fashion possible. I take no lectures from the Conservatives on economic management. But, actually, those opposition parties, I will. Patrick Harvie. Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way, one of Mr Tomkins' concerns was tax flight. Given that, even if local councils use their full capacity to increase council tax, council tax in Scotland will still be significantly lower than it is in England. Are we facing the prospect of a potential tax flight from England to Scotland? Cabinet Secretary. I would welcome people, of course, from across the United Kingdom to come to Scotland. It is the tories that are hostile to migration to Scotland, not the other parties in this chamber. It is also true to say that council tax in Scotland will be lower than it is in England and the rises will be lower than they are in England. We are taking reasonable decisions to empower local authorities. The fashion that I have heard people from across this chamber say for some time. The economic indicators in Scotland right now are good, only subdued because the uncertainty caused by Brexit, seven consecutive quarters of GDP growth, some of those quarters outperforming the UK record low unemployment at 3.6 per cent, record amounts of foreign direct investment, second only to London and the south-east of England, exports soaring, all threatened by Brexit and the mismanagement at the hands of the Conservatives. However, what the budget does is propose to invest £42.5 billion in the services and infrastructure and welfare and social security of Scotland, record sums for the national health service, real terms increase for education, more support for local government, three consecutive years since I have been finance secretary of more than real terms increases for local government, record investment in housing, more investment in transport and support for our emergency services. To oppose this budget does not just oppose the extra £2 billion that we are spending but imperils the ability to raise the necessary revenues of tens of billions of pounds, imperiling £42.5 billion of the Scottish budget. The Tories have lectured me. There is a good question, a good point made, I think it was a muddle phraser that made the point, who owns Scotland and that tells you everything you need to know about why the Tories oppose our progressive and fair tax policies. Tax cuts for the richest, hammer the most vulnerable in our society, that's not the path we will follow. Under our progressive regime, income tax in Scotland will be fair and progressive and Scotland will continue to be the lowest tax part of the United Kingdom. If we had followed the Tories' tax policies, we would be cutting public services to the tune of half a billion pounds. I was listening to the Labour Party and I was looking forward to Alec Rowley's speech because I know that he was on the Labour Speaker's list until he put forward an idea about how we might fund local government. He was told by the Labour Party to and I quote, shut up. He had no authority to negotiate with me and he's not even allowed to speak in the chamber anymore on behalf of the Labour Party. That's what happens when you have a good idea in the Labour Party in this chamber. I asked the Labour Party what is your figure to pay for your spending commitments and they didn't give me the alternative budget. I was promised a shambles on the over-delivered in that regard. The actual figure of taxes that would need to be raised to pay for Labour's commitments is a 6 per cent increase in the higher rate. That is a choice, but be honest with people of what you are proposing when you put suggestions to us. I have been criticised for doing a deal with the Greens. I would rather do a deal with the Greens rather than the DUP that is backing the Tories and a House of Commons. Alex Cole-Hamilton, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat, said in the Scotsman, we have made clear to the SNP that we want a budget that focuses on education, mental health and local government. We have delivered on education, mental health and local government, but the problem is that I did not dress it up in a union flag. Therefore, the Liberals will vote it down tonight. Support for the most vulnerable in our society. Stimulation for our economy. Safeguarding Scotland's public services. A competitive business rates regime. I have held the rates on income tax on business tax. We are empowering local government. Some Tories said that Theresa May had more chance to get her deal through Westminster and the European Union than I had getting a budget through the Parliament. Tonight, we will succeed first vote, first time delivering for Scotland against the meager, the meager, ineffective, reckless, irresponsible opposition that we face. That has been months of hard work, but surely Parliament should now move forward to deliver a budget that works for Scotland that protects us in the face of austerity, breaks it by accident and a clear economic plan to support our country and accelerate that economic growth. That is a good budget for Scotland, and I have great pleasure recommending it to Parliament tonight. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on the budget, and we are going to go straight to decision time. The first question is that amendment 15625.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion 15625, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the budget Scotland number 3 bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15625.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is yes, 67, no, 58. There was one abstention. The motion is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 15625, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the budget Scotland bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 15625, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes, 67, no, 58. There was one abstention. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.