Budget (Scotland) (No.5) Bill [Session 5]

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Lewis Macdonald)

The next item of businesses is a debate on motion S5M-24224, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill at stage 1.

14:58  

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance (Kate Forbes)

I start by thanking the Finance and Constitution Committee for its report, to which I will respond ahead of stage 3.

Today, we are reminded of the difference that one year can make. At this point in our consideration of last year’s budget bill, we had yet to pivot to respond to the emerging threat of the virus; that was to come in the following days. Since then, it has been clear that only by working together as a Parliament can we provide the support that our people, businesses and communities need and deserve.

That is what I have worked hard to do with this budget. I am committed to building the consensus across the chamber that we need to deliver this budget for Scotland. Why? Simply because this budget is key to supporting our economy and public services, to funding the vaccination programme and to laying the foundations for recovery. To do all that, the budget needs to pass, and that is why I appeal to parties across the Parliament to work together to secure its passage.

The constantly evolving impacts of Covid, combined with the financial uncertainty presented by the delayed United Kingdom budget, have meant that this has been a challenging budget to produce, and I recognise that it has also been difficult for Parliament to scrutinise it. I have been as open and transparent as possible in updating Parliament on our funding position. That includes the £1.1 billion of additional spending proposals that I announced last week for next year’s budget.

The delayed UK budget in March is key to confirming what the actual funding position will be for Scotland next year. It is likely that that will mean that we need to make further changes to the bill following the UK budget to ensure that the allocations reflect the available resources and to secure parliamentary support.

Over the past few weeks, I have met every party in Parliament several times, and I thank all members for their consideration of the budget and their willingness to engage in discussions. The additional £1.1 billion of spending proposals that I outlined last week reflected the cross-Parliament priorities that were identified in those discussions. It included the Liberal Democrats’ request for an increase in spending for mental health and education; it responded to the Greens’ suggestion to focus on energy efficiency measures and further steps to tackle poverty and inequalities; and it reflected the cross-party ask to extend non-domestic rates relief, increase the funds for affordable homes and enhance local government’s budget. That is because my overarching objective is to support the people of Scotland through these most challenging of months.

That brings me to the two reasoned amendments to the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill today. I should state at the outset that the Government does not vote for reasoned amendments to the budget bill until negotiations with other parties have been completed. I ask Labour and the Tories to continue to negotiate in good faith before stage 2 and after the UK Government’s budget in order to make progress on their proposals.

I thank Jackie Baillie for the various discussions that we have had over the past few weeks in relation to her amendment. I remain fully committed to exploring her proposals in advance of stage 2 and after the UK Government’s budget, which will provide greater clarity on the funding that is available to us.

I am sympathetic to considering the further steps that we can take to support carers and so will carefully examine that proposal in detail over the next fortnight. Two main issues still need to be considered to ensure that the proposal is deliverable, which is why I regret that I cannot support the amendment as it stands.

One of those issues is that the Government has already committed to collective bargaining—a principle to which I know the Labour Party also holds—and I would not want anything to cut across that. Secondly, the proposal needs to be affordable. Ultimately, the Government and I need to ensure that proposals on pay, which are recurring and so cannot be covered by one-off Covid consequentials, can be funded, particularly when there will be knock-on impacts on other workforces. My public commitment today, however, is to explore carers’ pay with officials and Jackie Baillie on behalf of the Labour Party over the coming weeks to see whether we can come to a compromise.

On Murdo Fraser’s amendment, I have repeatedly thanked local government for their efforts over the past year, which is why I provided a further £275 million to local government in this past week’s statement. Anything further is subject to the UK Government’s budget, as all funding has been committed, including the pre-emptive assumption of an additional £500 million of Covid consequentials and a pledge to support businesses.

I know that the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have further asks. I hope that all parties will consider enabling the bill to pass at stage 1 so that those proposals can be considered in good faith.

While engagement across party lines continues, the budget is already delivering the certainty that businesses need. A key ask from businesses, and from members of the Parliament, was to extend this year’s rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure for the whole of next year. I was pleased to propose that extended relief in my statement last week and to provide that certainty to businesses in these critically impacted sectors. On top of that, we now provide for the lowest poundage available anywhere in the UK, saving ratepayers more than £120 million when compared with previously published plans.

This pandemic is first and foremost a health crisis. We have a commitment to ensure that all health consequentials are passed on in full. We have not only delivered that commitment for next year but exceeded it. As I announced last week, we are proposing to provide £120 million of additional funding to help tackle the pandemic’s significant mental health impacts, exceeding the Liberal Democrats’ ask for an additional £100 million for mental health. At the same time, we are providing further support for the recovery of the national health service with an additional £60 million to continue that vital work. Overall, the budget provides a record level of spending on our health front line.

Members across the chamber have asked that we provide a fair settlement for local government. Next year’s local government settlement will be £11.6 billion. In addition, local government will receive £259 million of non-recurring additional Covid funding. The settlement not only gives local authorities the resources and flexibility to respond to the new challenges that the pandemic has created but, through our policy of guaranteeing non-domestic rates revenues, provides continued fiscal certainty that does not exist in England.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Does the cabinet secretary accept the case that has been put forward by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that the core funding for local government from the Scottish Government is increasing by just 0.9 per cent in the coming year?

Kate Forbes

Murdo Fraser has picked up that there is a difference between Covid consequential funding and our own core settlement funding. Out of our core settlement funding, which is designed to cover recurring costs for services that local government is key to delivering, such as education, our non-Covid recurring settlement has not increased that much, but we have tried to protect the local government settlement. Over and above that, we have passed on to local government the additional Covid consequentials for the Scottish Government, including the £259 million for next year that I mentioned, which was topped up by £275 million to help with Covid pressures. Therefore, there is a distinction to be made between recurring and non-recurring funding.

We are also the only devolved Government to have committed to extend the Covid-19 reliefs into 2021-22, replacing £719 million of non-domestic rates income.

I recognise the contribution of our public sector workers, and the ambition on all sides of the chamber, including mine, to go further on public sector pay. The UK Government pay freeze has a direct and material impact on our funding position. A balance needs to be struck between fairly rewarding public sector workers, ensuring job security and maintaining employment levels across all sectors in the wider Scottish economy. Nevertheless, our progressive approach to pay maximises awards for the lowest paid, which recognises that the impacts of the pandemic have not been felt equally across our society, while ensuring that pay rises are affordable now and in the future.

All that clearly shows that this budget will deliver on the key priorities of creating jobs and supporting our sustainable recovery while responding to the health crisis and tackling inequality. I have responded to the asks from across the chamber, and I hope that we can all come together to pass the budget and deliver this important funding for the people of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Budget (Scotland) (No.5) Bill.

15:07  

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance is indeed a fortunate person, because the budget that she is setting out today is the largest in the history of devolution. It is the highest ever budget that a Scottish Administration has had to deal with, and more money than any of her predecessors in office had. That is all thanks to the broad shoulders and the deep pockets of the British Government, which is supporting individuals, businesses and public services in Scotland at this difficult time.

In this budget, revenue has increased, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre—

The Minister for Trade, Innovation and Public Finance (Ivan McKee)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser

Of course.

Ivan McKee

Murdo Fraser talks about broad shoulders, but can he tell us how much of that money the UK Government has had to borrow?

Murdo Fraser

Let us just be thankful—[Interruption.] Let us just be thankful that we are part of Great Britain, which is the fifth largest economy in the world, with the strength and security of a financial system that allows us to borrow money easily and cheaply on the international markets. How foolish it would be to give up the opportunity to borrow that money in such a secure financial system, as members on the Scottish National Party benches would have us do. [Interruption.] If members will all calm down for a second, I can carry on with the rest of my speech.

According to SPICe, in this budget, revenue is increasing by some 11 per cent from last year to next. Those figures take no account of the additional Covid support that we have seen in the current financial year—some £9.7 billion in Barnett consequentials, guaranteed funding for the NHS and individuals, and support for businesses throughout Scotland.

Back in January, I set out a number of our budget asks to the finance secretary, and I am pleased that many of them have already been delivered, thanks again to the additional funds from the British Government.

We asked for no further increases in income tax. That has been delivered, because there is more money coming from the British Government.

We asked for more money to employ teachers, who are much needed in our schools at this time. That is being delivered—thanks to more money from the British Government.

We asked for all Barnett consequentials arising from the extra NHS spending down south to be passed on to the health service. More money is being delivered—thanks to the British Government.

We asked for the 100 per cent rates relief for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector—which has been hard hit by Covid restrictions, as we know—to be extended for a further 12 months. That has been delivered—thanks to the British Government.

Kate Forbes

I agree with the member that all those things are wonderful. Of course, the Scottish public will not enjoy any of that unless the budget passes. Will the Tories ensure that it does?

Murdo Fraser

The Scottish people will not enjoy any of it if we break our link with the British Government, which is providing all that money to back up the public services of Scotland.

We have asked for the existing business support schemes to be continued, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has indicated her willingness to do that. Although the existing schemes are welcome, I have raised with her before, as have many other members from different parties, the need to make sure that the schemes are as comprehensive as possible.

Too many of my constituents still say that they are not eligible for existing support schemes. Often, their businesses are not legally obliged to close—they are still permitted to trade—but they have seen a huge percentage of their trade disappear. We see that in aspects of retail, in bed and breakfasts and in parts of the tourism and events sector, and I heard about it just yesterday from people who operate in the wedding sector. Although the sector-specific funds that have been set up are very welcome, many businesses do not meet the criteria for them.

The discretionary funds that are available to local authorities are also welcome but, in many cases, the funds available simply do not go far enough to meet the need. For example, I know that, in some councils, the total that can be paid out to an individual business is £2,000. In many cases, that goes nowhere near meeting the need that must be met if we are to help businesses survive over the remaining months of lockdown restrictions.

The British Government is stepping up, extending the furlough scheme and providing direct support for businesses in Scotland. I hope that the Scottish Government will do the same with the funds at its disposal.

Although we welcome much in the budget, there are issues that remain to be addressed. Our reasoned amendment today sets out two areas of concern for us.

The first concern relates to the local government settlement. Yesterday, the Parliament discussed and voted on a fiscal framework for local councils that would provide a fair funding settlement. Conservative members proposed that councils’ budgets should increase at least in line with the total increases in the Scottish budget.

I have referred to the fact that the revenue budget that is available to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance had gone up, according to SPICe, by some 11 per cent. I accept that some of that is non-recurring funding. However, according to COSLA, core revenue funding for councils is not up by 11 per cent, or even by half of that; it is up by less than a tenth—by 0.9 per cent. That 0.9 per cent will only just cover one half of the likely increase in staff costs, if councils follow the Scottish Government’s pay policy.

According to COSLA, the revenue shortfall just to stand still in the coming year amounts to some £362 million. That money would not allow councils to do anything extra over and above what they are currently doing; it is simply what they need to meet existing commitments. The budget that is before us therefore falls short of what is required.

The Government needs to stop treating local councils as the whipping boy of the budget process. It needs to start treating councils fairly, and it should start with this budget.

The other concern that I highlight relates to the provision of free breakfasts and lunches for all primary school pupils, which the Parliament voted for last year and which needs to be delivered as soon as possible. We know that there are clear benefits in health and educational outcomes from providing such meals to young children. If the Government is serious about helping to tackle poverty and the attainment gap, it can do it now, rather than kick it into the long grass.

While there is much in the budget that we welcome, it is there only because of the deep pockets and broad shoulders of the British Government. As it stands, it is not a budget that we can support, because it falls short of what the Scottish people and Scottish society require.

I have pleasure in moving amendment S5M-24224.1, to insert at end:

“, but, in so doing, regrets that the Scottish Government’s draft Budget fails to meet the level of funding required by local authorities, as set out by COSLA, and further regrets that the Scottish Government has made no commitment in this draft Budget to fund free breakfasts and lunches for all primary school pupils.”

15:14  

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

When the Parliament passed the budget on 5 March 2020, we could not have foreseen the year that lay ahead. Eight days later, the first patient in Scotland died of coronavirus; today, the death toll stands at 7,084. Every one of those deaths is a tragedy and every person was a mother, father, son or daughter who is mourned by the people whom they have left behind.

I want to note those deaths at the start of the debate, because the proposals that are before us must be among our first steps in recovering from this national tragedy. Nothing can bring back the thousands of people whom coronavirus has taken from us, but the actions that we take today, if we choose well, can prevent more harm. They can prevent harm not only from the direct effects of the virus, but from mass unemployment that could drive hundreds of thousands of people into poverty. They can prevent harm from the suffering that could result from the NHS struggling to get back on its feet and to provide vital care to people who suffer from life-threatening diseases such as cancer, or who are waiting in pain for too long for operations, and they can prevent harm from the lagging effects of increased inequality that could damage the life chances of our young people for years and years to come.

We have the chance to choose a different direction of travel and to make it a budget for recovery—one that invests in our economy, gives us the best chance of protecting jobs and businesses, remobilises our NHS and rewards our front-line workers. There is much in the budget that we welcome, including the deep pockets of the UK Government, but it does not go far enough.

The coronavirus crisis might have exposed the deep inequalities in our society, but it did not create them. The truth is that when the pandemic hit, Scotland’s economy was still struggling to recover fully from the last recession. We cannot afford for the Government to make the same mistakes as it made after the last economic crisis.

We need from the Government a bolder and more ambitious budget that does not just take Scotland back to where we were before coronavirus, but builds the foundations for a better and more prosperous future. That is why we are genuinely disappointed that the Scottish National Investment Bank, which the First Minister called

“one of the most significant developments in the lifetime of this Parliament”

only three months ago, has had its budget cut. It is why we have called for more support for councils and for the Government to fill the £518 million Covid funding gap that local government is experiencing. It is why we want more funding for mental health. While England and Wales are spending 11 per cent of their health budget on mental health, Scotland is spending only 8 per cent, and the SNP Government cut services by £26 million in real terms between 2010 and 2019.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Is Jackie Baillie arguing that a higher percentage should be given to mental health and that a lower percentage—therefore, a cut—should be given to other health services?

Jackie Baillie

There is no need for a cut. If John Mason listens to his finance secretary, he will hear that there is now a lot more money than ever going into health. It is the highest budget ever, so there is an opportunity to invest some of that new money in mental health. That is an objective that we should all share.

I turn to the people who are being most let down by the budget and who are the subject of Labour’s amendment—social care workers. Those workers have looked after some of our most vulnerable people during the pandemic and we clapped for them every week during the first lockdown. They deserve more than our praise, however. They deserve a raise.

As it stands, the budget has no provision for a pay increase beyond the living wage for social care workers. Social care workers are mostly women and are low paid, and many of them have to work more than one job to make ends meet. During the pandemic, they put themselves at risk and dealt with death on a daily basis. The truth is that they were badly let down by the Government in terms of provision of personal protective equipment, lack of guidance and routine discharge of patients with Covid from hospitals to care homes, which was a decision that created a wave of deaths that many of them had to face every day they went to work. It is unacceptable that we should be asking people to do those jobs for poverty pay.

That is why we have lodged a reasoned amendment that backs the GMB’s call for £15 an hour for social care workers. That is not just about fair pay for a day’s work; it is, fundamentally, about decency and dignity. We cannot and should not expect people to do some of the most demanding jobs in our society for poverty pay. The coronavirus crisis has opened the public’s eyes to the work that social care workers do. It is not just the workers, their unions and Labour members who are demanding action; the public also wants to see those workers being rewarded.

I thank Kate Forbes, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, for her positive engagement on that issue. Labour’s reasoned amendment reflects those discussions and provides for a staged approach of an immediate rise to £12 per hour, followed by a review in order to reach £15 per hour. I am happy to agree to continuing discussions with the cabinet secretary in order that we can get to that point.

Let me be very clear, however. Although there is much in the budget that we would like to see being improved, if the Government accepts our amendment and, therefore, rewards social care workers and gives them the respect that they deserve, the Government can rely on Labour’s support for the budget at stage 3.

I move amendment S5M-24224.2, to insert at end:

“, and, in so doing, notes the calls for an immediate rise in 2021-22 to £12 per hour for all social care workers followed by a review to establish steps to increase this to £15 an hour to fully recognise the value of their work.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Bruce Crawford will speak on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee.

15:21  

Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)

When I agreed to take on the role of convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee—unbelievably, almost five years ago—I could never have imagined how much of a rollercoaster I was letting myself in for. Although the mysteries of the fiscal framework and the impact of Brexit were challenging enough, they have, of course, been overshadowed by the tragic national emergency that we continue to face.

In what is probably my last speech as convener, I pay tribute to my colleagues on the committee throughout session 5, who have largely put political differences to one side in carrying out our essential scrutiny role. We have worked primarily on a consensual basis and always in a constructive and respectful manner. Indeed, we have unanimously agreed all our budget and pre-budget reports during this parliamentary session, which is an achievement for any committee that is dealing with the budget.

I sincerely thank our clerking team, which is led by James Johnston. Its members have supported, advised and—yes—sometimes cautioned me on my approach. They are remarkable, incredibly hard working professionals whom, over the course of the past five years, I have come to greatly admire. [Applause.]

Presiding Officer, it is inevitable that the focus of our report on the budget for 2021-22 has been on the economic and fiscal impact of the pandemic. We recognise that the progress of the vaccination programme provides room for optimism, but the UK and Scottish economic and fiscal outlooks remain highly uncertain. The impact of the UK’s trading relationship with the EU also remains unclear.

Given that continuing uncertainty, and with borrowing costs extraordinarily low, the committee’s view is that economic recovery from the crisis, rather than fiscal consolidation, should be the priority in the next financial year.

The committee notes that there does not yet appear to be evidence of an overall differential impact on the Scottish economy relative to the UK economy from the pandemic or from the future trading relationship with the EU. Given the way that the fiscal framework operates, that means that the Scottish budget is relatively well protected from the continuing UK-wide economic shock. However, the medium-term financial strategy highlights

“a considerable risk that the Scottish Income Tax base might prove less resilient to COVID-19”

and to Brexit,

“simply due to differences in the sectoral composition of the two economies”,

once we begin to emerge from the pandemic. The MTFS also suggests that

“differences are likely to emerge”

when business support measures such as the furlough scheme are withdrawn. The committee has invited the cabinet secretary to explain what actions have been—or can be—taken by the Scottish Government to address that considerable risk.

We have also recommended that our successor committee continue to monitor closely the impact of Scotland’s relative tax performance on the budget as the economy emerges from the pandemic and as Government support is withdrawn.

A key question for the committee was the extent to which the pandemic has had a differential impact on sections of the population and sectors of the economy. Although some sections of the population have been well protected in terms of employment and income, others have suffered economically.

The pandemic has led to more job losses, higher rates of furlough and less ability to work from home among younger, lower-income and less-educated people. The committee therefore recognises that it is highly likely that the crisis has exacerbated existing structural inequalities, with particularly severe consequences for people on low incomes.

It is the committee’s view that a fair economic recovery from Covid will require proactive measures to reduce inequalities in wealth and income, with a need for a particular focus on supporting lower-income, less-educated and younger workers into the labour market. The recovery should also help them to progress up through the labour market while driving up standards of pay and workplace rights.

The committee also suggests that, as we emerge from national lockdown, the Scottish Government should consider targeting business support at protecting the jobs and businesses that are subject to restrictions and to temporarily lower demand. That support should also be targeted at incubating emerging businesses and sectors.

The committee recognises that the fiscal and economic challenges arising from Covid-19 are enormous. However, a crisis can create new thinking. As we begin to shift our focus from crisis management to recovery, it is essential that the differential impact of the pandemic, especially on low-income families, is addressed. That also creates an opportunity to re-examine the persistent structural inequalities in our society. There can be little doubt that such inequalities have been exacerbated by the current crisis.

There should be an examination of how the structure of devolved taxes could be reformed to support a fair and equal economic recovery, and the committee recommends a fundamental consideration of what the Scottish tax system is designed to achieve. In particular, any review should consider the role of tax policy in achieving a just, sustainable and strong economy as we emerge from the grip of Covid. That should include examination of the breadth and nature of the tax base, of the impact of economic growth on the size of the tax base and of the relationship between local, Scottish and UK-wide taxes.

We recommend a national conversation, led jointly by the Government and the Parliament, which should include a wide range of voices from across Scotland. I have every confidence that the Parliament can rise to the enormous challenge it will face in session 6 in addressing the tragic and brutal impact of Covid.

I will finish on a more optimistic note. I have tremendously enjoyed my role as convener, and I wish our successor committee the very best of luck in dealing with the significant challenges that it and the new Parliament will undoubtedly face.

15:28  

Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

If that is Bruce Crawford’s final speech, he will be a huge loss to the Parliament. He has made an immense contribution to political life in Scotland. [Applause.] I have always admired his persistent, polite and respectful approach to politics, despite the strain that he has faced on some occasions. I wish him well in the future.

The Liberal Democrats will vote for the budget at stage 1. We will support it because of the gains that we secured from the finance secretary and which she announced in her statement to the Parliament last week: £120 million for mental health to make spending up to £1.2 billion, which was a goal that we set to address the mental health crisis; additional funds for education to help pupils bounce back from the loss of schooling in the pandemic; and more support for businesses that are on their knees in lockdown.

Those are the priorities that we set out to Kate Forbes in our discussions. She followed through in her statement last week and we are grateful for that; that is sufficient to secure our support at stage 1. The finance secretary knows however, because I have told her, that we are on the hunt for more from the next stages of the budget. We suspect that more funds will come from the Chancellor in his budget in March, and we know the finance secretary is wise and will have kept funds back for future negotiations. We know that more money will be available.

We will be looking for support for local government, which stepped up during the pandemic when it mattered most but which continues to be at the rough end of the Government’s priorities. Local government has faced a cut to its capital budget just when investment is required. It has been compensated for the council tax freeze, but the support is not enough and is not built into the budgets for future years.

We will be looking to address the unfairness of the funding for the north-east of Scotland. We want more support for businesses and people who have been left behind, especially those in the tourism sector.

Jackie Baillie

I invite Willie Rennie to say whether he would support a pay rise for social care workers.

Willie Rennie

Jackie Baillie has obviously read my speech. I will address that in a second.

On education, we want more bounce-back funds for pupils to help them to recover from the pandemic. The Scottish Government still does not have adequate plans in place to give young people in our schools the boost that they will need in the coming year.

Of course, additional support for mental health is still required, because we have a mental health crisis in this country.

There is a lot to do to put the recovery first, and we will argue for that, but I say to the finance secretary that our plans will be affordable. I will set out details in a letter to her in the coming days to ensure that, together, we fully understand what we are seeking to get.

We will abstain on both amendments, because we want to take the issues that are being raised by the Conservatives and the Labour Party into the discussions. I am particularly supportive of the aims of the campaign to pay social care workers £15 per hour. We have had discussions with the GMB about that, so I am keen to explore further with the Government what can be done in that area.

The Liberal Democrat party has always hunted for agreement, rather than chased after division. Over the past year, we have worked constructively with a host of ministers. [Interruption.] I can hear them crying out right now. They are desperate for more co-operation. However, we sometimes disagree—sometimes vigorously—because it is our role to scrutinise and challenge to ensure that things get better.

Of course, in the middle of a global pandemic that has resulted in thousands of people dying, even more people being in hospital, thousands of people being out of work and our way of life being shut down, it will take the combined efforts of everyone to overcome the challenges. We want the budget to succeed in getting money to schools, to businesses and to people who need mental health support. There are no guarantees that we will support the budget at stage 3 but, with good will and a bit of give and take on both sides, it might just be possible. At a time of crisis, we must do our best to make things work.

15:32  

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)

I assumed that we would hear from Bruce Crawford in the stage 3 debate on the budget but, if that was his last contribution as the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, I thank him for his work in that role. I think that those thanks will be echoed by members of all parties, including everyone who has served on the committee.

The Green approach to budgets has always focused on putting forward positive, workable proposals that seek to make improvements. Our work is the reason why there have not been the cuts to local government that the SNP has proposed since 2016. It is why Scotland has a fairer tax system, which the Greens alone proposed at the last election. It is why there has been progress on issues from marine protected areas to local rail, and from teachers’ pay to energy efficiency. It is also why free bus travel for under-19s will be introduced this year.

While others often seem to think that defeating the budget and throwing public services into crisis should be their objective, we know that winning improvement is the real objective. Although voting down a budget can be a necessary step, it should be a last resort.

This year, we have set out clear challenges for the Government, one of which is supporting household incomes—especially targeting those who are most in need. For goodness’ sake—if the Government can afford a council tax freeze, which will give the biggest savings to the wealthy, it must be able to take more progressive steps, too. Such steps might be taken via social security, by cutting other costs such as energy bills and public transport or, indeed, by ensuring fair public sector pay. It is not for any political party to undermine the role of unions by determining what they should accept, but it is clear that the Government will need to go further to meet reasonable demands.

We have also set out proposals to take forward a truly green recovery. All political parties talk a good game on that, but they then keep backing oil and gas, aviation, road building and all the failed priorities of the past. Those need to be replaced with investment in a sustainable future.

We have put those priorities to the Government. We do not yet have agreement, therefore we cannot yet support the budget bill and will abstain to allow it to proceed to stage 2. Such a situation was probably inevitable given that, yet again, the UK Government has delayed its own budget until after the Scottish budget has been published. It seems committed to wrecking its own fiscal framework.

I turn to the amendments. The Tory amendment refers to the “draft Budget”, which of course does not even exist. It also casts judgment on the settlement for local government before we know what the final position on that will be. As for the Labour amendment, I strongly support the call for fair pay for social care workers. However, Labour members know that no possible amendment to the budget could achieve that. The Scottish Government is not the employer of social care workers and cannot directly change their pay rate. As the campaign by Unite the union makes clear, if we are to achieve that we need national and sectoral bargaining that covers all care workers, which the Greens proposed in our green new deal for workers paper last year.

Scottish Greens will therefore abstain on the motion and on both amendments. We will continue to work toward budget amendments to achieve improvement for Scotland’s people, both in the immediate crisis in household incomes and in the long-term drive for a green recovery.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate.

15:36  

Tom Arthur (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)

I am conscious that, as the first back bencher to make a contribution to the debate, this comment might be premature. However, this has been the most encouraging stage 1 budget debate in which I have participated in my five years in the Parliament. We have heard substantive contributions from across the parties, and a clear desire and willingness to engage to achieve a budget that reflects all our shared priorities. That demonstrates that, contrary to what some might suggest, the Parliament is a robust institution and that when people come together and work together in good faith, results can be achieved.

Nowhere is that more in evidence than in the work of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Although I do not think that we have yet heard the last of my friend and colleague Bruce Crawford, I pay tribute to him and to the committee’s clerks for all their hard work.

When speaking in budget debates I am always conscious that we use a lot of big numbers that do not necessarily relate to the lived experience of our constituents. I would like to touch on that in my contribution, in which I want to get to the heart of what the budget actually means for people in Renfrewshire South.

In my constituency, five high schools, 18 primary schools and one special school will benefit from more than £1.8 million in pupil equity funding. Such funding is to be spent at the discretion of headteachers, with the aim of closing the attainment gap. In 2016, the SNP Scottish Government provided nearly £30 million in funding for a new Barrhead high school. The £1 billion learning estate investment programme will also benefit pupils in Renfrewshire South in coming years, with a new primary campus for Neilston primary and St Thomas’s primary, and in due course a new Thorn primary in Johnstone.

Families with young children will also benefit from the increase in early learning and childcare provision from 600 to 1,140 hours, which will save them more than £4,500 per child per year. Free school meals will save around £380 per child per year. Across the areas of Renfrewshire Council and East Renfrewshire Council, around 19,000 children and 12,000 families are expected to benefit from the Scottish child payment, thanks to £68 million of investment from the Scottish Government in the budget. The budget will also deliver £70 million for the young persons guarantee, which will continue to provide work, education or training for every 16 to 24-year-old in my constituency and across Scotland.

All that is being delivered in addition to on-going support and commitments, such as the provision of the baby box that is given to every family regardless of their circumstances so as to give children the best possible start in life. Since 2017, more than 40,000 such boxes have been given out in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board area.

Health funding in Renfrewshire South will be improved through a budget increase across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde of more than £33 million, which will help to ensure that our front-line health and care services continue to receive the support that they require at what I am sure we will all understand is a very challenging time. Our councils have been on the front line, delivering support throughout the pandemic. Last year, more than £31 million of Covid-related funds have been given out to the local authorities that cover the Renfrewshire South constituency.

The budget increases the combined budgets of Renfrewshire Council and East Renfrewshire Council by 2.6 per cent, and that is in addition to the £90 million that is being delivered across the country to support a council tax freeze and help to protect household incomes.

I know from speaking to local business owners across Renfrewshire South the pressure that they have been under. The extension of 100 per cent non-domestic rates relief for properties in the retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation sectors for all of the next financial year will come as a huge relief. High streets across my constituency are hubs for small businesses and I know that the commitment of that support will be welcome news.

The budget will help to protect our communities as we continue to fight the pandemic. With the urgent measures that it puts in place, the budget will also provide financial stability for those who need it, easing pressure on household incomes, helping those who need it and, therefore, reducing financial burdens.

The budget gives hope that, as we focus on rebuilding, we can ensure that opportunities are available for all communities, including in my Renfrewshire South constituency and across Scotland, as we emerge from the pandemic. For those reasons, I will support the budget at stage 1.

15:40  

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which notes that I am a partner in a farming business.

I recognise that the budget comes at a time when all Governments are facing unprecedented challenges. The period ahead of us will likely be the most unusual and least predictable in the history of this Parliament. However, we should also be conscious that this is a time of even more extreme uncertainty for Scotland’s businesses and people, particularly those who are concerned about the security of their jobs and incomes.

Unfortunately, this week’s statement from the First Minister did not offer a clear direction out of the tough restrictions that many businesses have been operating under. In my region, I have heard from many businesses across tourism, hospitality and a range of other sectors that have been left disappointed by the lack of a route map out of the restrictions. Those businesses have too often had lengthy waits to access support funding, and even if it has arrived, it has only just kept them afloat. Beyond that, many have made considerable losses.

Public bodies, too, have been forced to work in entirely different ways. Many schools and other centres of learning have been empty for months. Hospitals have had a complete refocusing of the care and treatment that they provide. The police have had additional demands placed on them and local councils have been handed the administration of a number of business support schemes, as well as being on the front line in social care and other services. That has put huge additional pressure on them, and in some cases, at least, it has impacted on their ability to deliver what is expected of them.

We should have a budget that is ambitious for recovery. That we should build back better approaches being a cliché, but that must be part of our consideration at every stage. As part of their scrutiny of the climate change plan update, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and other committees have been considering the fact that we must aim for a green recovery that ensures that we do not go backwards in relation to climate targets, given our hard-won progress against them. A key part of that is how the Government manages its rural economy. Unfortunately, however, the backdrop is that little guidance or clarity is forthcoming from SNP ministers about the future of rural support or how it will be delivered. Our rural sector acknowledges the need for change, but it is also looking for certainty.

Despite the Government’s rhetoric, the draft budget sees programmes such as the agri-environment climate scheme being given a headline cut of 20 per cent at a time when we are told that environmental measures are more essential than ever. Another key measure is the agricultural transformation programme, which supports sustainability and innovation in farming. That saw a huge underspend last year, which was then reallocated to other areas.

All of that adds up to a Scottish Government that is happy to talk about change being essential in the rural sector, yet seems to be undermining vital capital investment schemes to achieve that, all the while piling on additional regulation. In the coming year, the LEADER programme, which is so valued by our sector, will see its spending cut almost in half.

Kate Forbes

I am curious that the member has listed a number of schemes that came from the EU. Replacement funds have not been forthcoming from the UK Government, which is why there have been substantial cuts in those areas. Will he take that up with his UK Government colleagues?

Jamie Halcro Johnston

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism made that point, and I made the point back to him that that is a question of choice, given the additional funding that the Scottish Government has received from the UK Government over the past year.

The convergence money, which was hard won by the industry and the Scottish Conservatives, has been dipped into to top up the budget for the less favoured area support scheme. That involved taking money from one part of the sector and giving it away to another, in a move that NFU Scotland described as the Scottish Government “short-changing” the farming sector.

In all of this, what the sector really needs is a sense of direction and evidence that there is a strategy for the medium term, that ministers know where they are going and that the desired priorities of today will be linked to the delivered priorities of tomorrow. This budget is a missed opportunity for that.

Despite the challenges, this is—as Murdo Fraser rightly reminded us—the largest budget that any Scottish Government has ever had at its disposal. Hundreds of millions of pounds in support have found their way to this Parliament to allocate, and we have seen further unprecedented sums through programmes such as the job retention scheme directly supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is a budget that would have been impossible without the security of being part of the United Kingdom.

It should be a budget that shows ambition and sets a path for the time ahead and the challenges that we face, but instead it is a budget that falls short and finds this SNP Government wanting when businesses and working people in rural Scotland need help most.

15:45  

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

At the outset of my brief remarks, I commend the finance secretary, Kate Forbes, for her very consensual approach to the setting of this year’s budget. Such a consensual approach is entirely fitting in these unprecedented times and properly reflects the very difficult year that the people of Scotland have endured, and the difficult months that lie ahead as our economy takes steps on the road to recovery and sustainable renewal. I am very pleased to note that discussions on a pay increase for social care workers are on-going, for those people are indeed angels—every one of them.

The budget set forth includes a significant number of very important initiatives, including support for public sector workers and business. In the short time available, I will highlight a few initiatives that will make a real difference to the lives of my Cowdenbeath constituents.

I very much welcome the additional £125 million to help young people, those who have been made redundant and the long-term unemployed. That includes £70 million to support the young persons guarantee, which is a key Scottish Government intervention to help young people find work, training or educational opportunity. Given the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the younger generation, it is absolutely vital that all of us do everything that we can to help young people through to the other side of the pandemic and ensure that they are not left behind.

On those who have lost their jobs, an additional £35 million is being made available for skills and retraining, including for the national transition training fund, which specifically supports people who are unemployed or at risk of redundancy further to the pandemic. A further £20 million is to be made available to support the longer-term unemployed.

Another area of spending that will be of particular importance to my Cowdenbeath constituents is the commitment to spend £182 million to close the attainment gap. Each child in my Cowdenbeath constituency deserves the same life chances and opportunities as every other child in Scotland, and it is to the credit of the SNP Scottish Government that it is determined to make that a reality.

Housing is of course an important issue in my Cowdenbeath constituency, as it is across Scotland. The SNP Scottish Government’s planned investment of more than £3.5 billion over the next five years is very welcome news indeed.

The £90 million that the SNP Scottish Government is making available to support a further council tax freeze is very welcome and good news for households in Fife, where we hear that Fife Council has frozen council tax for the financial year 2021-22, in the light of that additional funding that is being made available to it.

It would be remiss of me not to place the Scottish Government budget in the context in which it sits, which is regrettably that it cannot take account of all of Scotland’s resources and it cannot reflect in all aspects the priorities of the people of Scotland. Rather, we can only plead with the UK Tory Government in London—a Government that we in Scotland did not vote for—to, for example, extend the furlough scheme, make the universal credit uplift permanent or request that a return to Westminster austerity politics is rejected.

Power over our resources continues to lie with Westminster, which retains the key economic levers that every other normal independent country takes for granted. What rational person hands over their money to a neighbour and gives them absolute power, without a veto, over how it is spent? Scotland has been in that condition for too long, and independence is coming.

15:50  

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)

The convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee is right: Covid has exposed more than ever the class divisions in our society. The poorest and those in insecure work and unsuitable housing are twice as likely as others to die from Covid. The poorest are three times more likely to commit suicide and are more likely to die from addiction or cancer or to suffer from obesity. They are more likely to be the key workers who have kept the country from collapsing—the shop and food production workers, bus drivers, social care staff and factory workers. They cannot work from home. A person cannot drive a bus from their living room. A person does not have the option of showering an 80-year-old disabled person from the kitchen table while the banana loaf browns in the Aga.

They are the people we all clapped on our doorsteps. Some people took videos and selfies to show just how compassionate they were. Stuff your videos and your selfies. The way for the Government to show that it cares is by committing real, hard cash to improve those people’s lives.

Tom Arthur

Neil Findlay raises some really important points. One of my concerns relates to when we move back into the levels system. Some parts of the country found it really difficult to get out of levels 3 and 4. Does Neil Findlay agree that there needs to be specific resource targeted at those areas if we find that, once we move back into the levels system, they struggle to get down the levels?

Neil Findlay

I am glad that Mr Arthur has finally come round to that view. I have been arguing all my time in the Parliament that resources have to go to the communities in most need. It is just a shame that the Government has not been listening.

The way for the Government to show that it cares is by committing real, hard cash. It is not by imposing a 1 per cent pay increase, as the Government has done in the NHS, but by paying a minimum of £15 an hour in the health and social care sector.

Last week, we saw pictures of 200 people queuing up in the snow for charitable food. That shocked many people, but it should not have shocked people. That is not new, and it does not happen just in Glasgow. Every night, I pass a food van parked at the rear entrance to Waverley station that feeds queues of hungry people. Across every region, community projects are doing similar heroic work.

That is a scandal that is off the scale. A few weeks ago, I wrote to all the party leaders to call for cross-party talks to see whether we could come together to end hunger in Scotland. I received replies from Jackie Baillie and Andy Wightman, but not a word from anyone else. Are we not all ashamed to live in a country that cannot provide its citizens with food, which is the most basic human need? I am certainly ashamed of that.

What about housing? We had a housing crisis long before Covid. This week, we heard that Scotland has three times the level of deaths among homeless people compared with England. What is the Government’s cunning plan to deal with that? It is to cut the affordable housing budget by £100 million. More than half of those homeless people who have died were drug users. The Government announced an extra £50 million out of the social housing budget, which would have helped to house the very same people. It is all just a game to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance but, in the real world, on the street, people are dying.

We see the Government, which was going to scrap the unfair council tax, going back to a freeze that will deliver a massive 1 penny a month for the lowest-income households, but £30 a month for the highest earning.

Those are deliberate political decisions that dismiss the poor and the low paid because they are less inclined to vote, and reward the middle class, which does vote.

I have no doubt that the cabinet secretary will trot out her well-rehearsed lines about where the money will come from if we want to do other things. The Government pours money down the drain as if there is no tomorrow.

Let me tell her where the money will come from. It will come from the same place as the £100 million to pay off the maliciously prosecuted Rangers liquidators; the £100 million extra to pay for ferries; and the £650 million to pay for delayed discharge over five years. It can come from there, or from the £16 million that was paid for remedial work to the sick kids hospital; the £1.4 million a month in charges for the same hospital, which has not yet treated a patient; the £50 million of remedial work at the Queen Elizabeth hospital; the £1 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent on the Alex Salmond case; the salary and expenses of the cabinet secretary’s predecessor, who never turns up for his work; or the £54,000 to coach civil servants to answer questions at an inquiry. That is where the money will come from. I would rather it was spent on putting something in the mouths of hungry people and putting a roof over their heads than have the cabinet secretary and the Government pour more money down the drain.

The money is there. What is not there is the political will.

15:55  

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I welcome the commitments that have been set out in the budget. It has a specific commitment to enterprise, which will be of immense benefit to my constituents across Dumfries and Galloway and the South Scotland region.

Tom Arthur spoke of how the big numbers impact his constituents, and that is important. The budget commits to increasing the funding that is available to Scotland’s enterprise agencies, including the newly established South of Scotland Enterprise, which became operational in April 2020 and hit the ground running at the start of the Covid pandemic lockdown. The budget commits an additional £3.4 million in resource funding and an additional £5 million in capital funding for SOSE, which is a combined additional investment of £8.4 million on top of the statutory funding that the agency is to receive each year.

Working with Dumfries and Galloway Council, SOSE has provided direct financial and practical support to over 500 businesses across Dumfries and Galloway during the pandemic, with essential support packages that range from £1,000 to £100,000. The leadership—Professor Russel Griggs and chief executive officer Jane Morrison-Ross—and their teams of staff have been absolutely fantastic and very helpful in my contact with them on behalf of constituents and businesses, for which I thank them.

Since its commencement, SOSE has been crucial in ensuring that local projects and community groups and initiatives are supported to survive and grow. SOSE has provided direct funding to community groups assisting with Covid resilience, as well as to initiatives that are actively working to make Dumfries and Galloway an attractive place for people and businesses—and we really need that. One such project is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-designated Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere reserve, which recently received £1.9 million and is also working to educate and to mitigate the impact of the climate emergency. The additional funding that is awarded to SOSE in the budget will allow continued support across Dumfries and Galloway, and it will undoubtedly continue to shine a light on our region.

The budget also contains over £100 million in funding to support infrastructure and active transport. That funding includes work to implement the recommendations in the “South West Scotland Transport Study”, which means much-needed improvements to the A75, A76 and A77, including improved east-west rail links and bus infrastructure. Many constituents have contacted me about that. I would encourage the Scottish Government to continue to ensure that those commitments are implemented and expedited as much as possible.

Almost 97,000 affordable homes have been delivered since the Government came to office, nearly 67,000 of which were for social rent, including more than 14,000 council homes. That has meant an additional 1,621 social homes and 614 affordable homes across Dumfries and Galloway in this session of Parliament alone. Since 2007, 4,484 new homes have been built in Dumfries and Galloway—[Interruption.]

I do not have the time to give way.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

The member is in her last minute—these are solely four-minute speeches.

Emma Harper

The building of those new homes has directly benefited families across my region.

Between 9 November and 31 December 2020, 1,470 people in Dumfries and Galloway applied for the Scottish child payment, which will be worth £10 per child for low-income families by the end of 2022.

I have been working with people in north-west Dumfries and with the Lochside community centre and grub club, who provide meals to local families with support from Scottish Government budget money. I have just written to the cabinet secretary asking whether the Government can help the club match money that it already has to purchase a van to deliver meals.

To conclude, I welcome the budget and I support the motion on the bill at stage 1.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry. There is no time in hand, so I have to be quite strict. I do not know why it always lands in my lap, but there we go.

16:00  

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

It is the strength of our union that has allowed us to weather the storm of this crisis and deliver unprecedented funding during the pandemic, and that is reflected in the Scottish budget boost. We are seeing an increase in funding of 11 per cent on last year as a result, bringing the resource budget to just shy of £38 billion and allowing the SNP to agree to a number of the Scottish Conservatives’ budget priorities. We are grateful for Kate Forbes’s engagement in the process. The overall spending outlook for Scotland for 2020-21 is better than it has been for some time, which is due in large part to the £9.7 billion in Barnett consequentials from the UK Government. That is more funding for the NHS and for supporting most businesses across Scotland.

We analyse the budget today, at stage 1, believing that this was Kate Forbes’s chance to provide our fantastic local authorities with much-needed help at a time of national crisis, but I believe that the budget is short-sighted. For the past 14 years, the SNP has raided council budgets—[Interruption.]—I am sorry about that ringing, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are having a bit of a musical accompaniment. I hope that somebody has found out whose it is.

Rachael Hamilton

It is actually a timer.

For the past 14 years, the SNP has raided council budgets, which has run down the ability of local authorities to react to the ravages of inclement weather by repairing potholes the size of craters on our roads or progressing essential flood-risk defences. Ms Forbes may remember that, in 2018, the Scottish Conservatives called for a £100 million pothole action fund. However, years later, there is still no extra support for local authorities to deal with crumbling roads. Further, the Scottish Government must recognise that we are experiencing extreme weather patterns and that an extra £150 million for flood-risk management is perhaps not enough, considering the damage that has been done to the homes of my constituents in Newcastleton in the past 24 hours, for example.

In her summing-up, I urge the finance secretary to say whether the SNP will support a fair funding settlement for local authorities. The Scottish Conservatives want funding for councils whereby they receive a set amount of the Scottish Government’s budget each year, mirroring the block grant from the UK Government. A fair funding settlement would also address concerns over the sustainability of essential youth programmes and projects that are delivered by local authorities. I appreciate that this has not all happened on the finance secretary’s watch, but, for the past 14 years, the SNP has raided council budgets to pay for its own failed bailouts and botched projects.

The amount of money that the SNP has given to local authorities has fallen by £276 million in real terms since 2013-14, which has run down local services such as youth groups and initiatives. According to Unison’s recent report, youth services are at breaking point and youth service spending in Scotland has been cut by over £11 million in the past three years alone. A report on a YouthLink Scotland member survey from June 2019 also showed a funding crisis in the sector. We know that all of that is having a disproportionate impact on young people from deprived backgrounds. Compounded by the pandemic, things are, sadly, only going to deteriorate further unless councils are given the funding that they deserve to restore services.

We will not support the budget at stage 1 tonight, because, without a doubt, this SNP budget offers little hope for local authorities that they can provide the essential services that are required to support the most vulnerable people in our communities as we rebuild our way out of the pandemic.

16:03  

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

As has been said already, the timing of the budget this year is very far from ideal. I accept that it has been incredibly difficult, over the past 12 months, for the Westminster and Holyrood Governments to plan far ahead, so I understand why the UK Government is having its budget at this point. However, quite frankly, that is still not acceptable. How can any of the devolved Governments properly set a budget when we do not know what the UK budget contains? In particular, it is essential that we know personal allowances and other aspects of income tax, as income tax is not a fully devolved tax and we can vary only certain parts of it. Clearly, the normal approach should be that the UK sets its budget first, we follow, and then local government builds on that afterwards.

On the question of a Scotland-specific economic shock, we face the slightly odd situation that the requirements for such a shock have been triggered but it does not seem that there has actually been such a shock. That seems to be because of timing differences between the Office for Budget Responsibility and Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts. It means that we have more flexibility for the next three years, which is welcome, although that will need to be addressed in the budget for 2024-25. However, that clearly was not the scenario that was expected when the fiscal framework was put in place. Both Governments were trying to cater for a situation in which the Scottish economy took a hit that did not impact on the UK as a whole—or, at least, not to the same extent.

That shows that it is impossible to foresee all that might occur when any fiscal framework is put in place or when it is reviewed, as our fiscal framework is expected to be fairly soon. When the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reviewed the Scottish Fiscal Commission, it commented that we already have one of the most complex fiscal frameworks in the world. We also heard from the Citizens Assembly of Scotland that a recurring theme was that the public do not understand our tax system. I therefore appeal to both Governments to make any renewed fiscal framework as fair as possible, certainly, and to consider whether they can make it simpler and more understandable. One aim of the settlement is that the public are able to hold the Government accountable for a particular decision, but, frankly, I do not consider that that is happening at the moment.

One of the most important sections of the Finance and Constitution Committee’s report is between pages 26 and 27: it is headed “A Fair and Equal Economic Recovery”, with the subheading “Differential Social and Economic Impact”. It seems clear that Covid-19 has made existing structural inequalities worse. The incomes of some people—in particular, the better off—have been largely unaffected by the economic downturn, whereas people on low or precarious incomes have been hit harder. That needs to be tackled through how we spend the resources that we have in the coming year—as I believe has been done in the current year—and through what we do with taxation in future years. If I get to speak in the debate that follows this one, I will touch more on that.

I want to refer to the debate that we had yesterday on local government. It is all well and fine to want a more fixed settlement for councils, but, if they are to receive more money, some other sector will receive less, and that is likely to be the NHS. I accept that the NHS has been treated relatively generously in recent years. In effect, the Conservatives are saying that the NHS has received too much funding in recent years and that local authorities have not received enough. That is a perfectly valid argument, although I am not sure that the Conservatives have actually said that at the time of previous budgets. They cannot ask only for more spending for councils; in order to be believed, they need to say that that means less for the NHS.

If members got as far as pages 39 and 40 of the Finance and Constitution Committee’s report, they would come to the section on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Among other things, that section refers to MSP staff cost provision, which is planned to rise from £18 million by £5.8 million.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must conclude.

John Mason

As the report says, that is justified because of rising workloads, but I have to say that I have slightly mixed feelings about it.

I support the budget.

16:08  

Mark McDonald (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting me last week to discuss some of the budget issues. I hope that, by stage 3, she might be able to say a bit more about some of the issues that I raised with her, which I will reference in my speech today.

Willie Rennie alluded to the north-east of Scotland, and it will come as no surprise to members that I intend to focus the bulk of my remarks on the city of Aberdeen and the issues that have been faced here. On the face of it, the statistics for Aberdeen are bleak. The business rates increase in 2017, which was much rehearsed in the chamber, saw business rates in Aberdeen rise at a level that was 15 per cent above the national average. During the pandemic, 30 per cent of all notified redundancies in Scotland have been in Aberdeen city. Although 5,497 properties in Aberdeen sit under the £18,001 threshold for the small business bonus, only 2,190 receive the bonus. In percentage terms, 23 per cent of businesses in Aberdeen city received the small business bonus, against an average of 50 per cent across Scotland.

I raised with the cabinet secretary a number of things that could be considered in relation to the budget. The first concerns the welcome transitional relief that was introduced in 2017, following the revaluation. The multipliers on that transitional relief mean that the support that has been provided year on year has reduced, as was always the intention. However, because of the economic storm that has hit Aberdeen as a result of the coronavirus and the failure of the oil price to bounce back, there has been a double whammy for businesses in the area. Therefore, resetting the multipliers on the transitional relief so that it returns to 2017 levels could provide significant support for over 1,000 businesses in the north-east of Scotland.

Another thing that the cabinet secretary could do is consider the low uptake of the small business bonus in Aberdeen and understand what is driving that. Some businesses will undoubtedly fall outside the threshold as a result of the multiple properties issue, but I cannot believe that that applies to as many businesses as seem not to be receiving the funds. Work could be done with local agencies to increase the uptake of that vital support.

However, business rates are only one element. I believe that the Scottish Government needs to understand the wider issues around the costs of doing business, particularly for small businesses, and how those could be relieved. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses has raised with me the fact that small businesses are keen to make a digital transition to more online ways of working but, with the recent digital boost funding having been snapped up in a matter of hours, many of them do not understand where they can get the support to enable that transition.

At the start of my speech, I mentioned the issue of redundancies. In the previous financial crisis, many people who were made redundant chose that moment to start their own businesses, and we may well see another surge in new start-ups as we move into the recovery phase. I seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government and its agencies stand ready to support them and ensure that they have every possibility of success in the future.

16:12  

Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)

I welcome the commitment to explore carers pay and look forward to the outcome of the talks that Kate Forbes is having with other parties on that matter. The issue will not be easy to deal with in the context of the UK’s public sector pay freeze, and it should be noted that the budget sets out a distinctive Scottish pay policy that, again, supports the lowest paid, charting a very different course from that taken in the ill-judged UK pay freeze. I think that we all want social care workers to be properly rewarded, and I look forward to progress on that. If there is good will on all sides, I am sure that we can achieve it.

As the cabinet secretary has said, it is clear that she does not have all the tools that she needs to build the budget that she might want to deliver in an ideal world. All the UK Government spending in response to Covid and the consequentials that are subsequently passed to Scotland come from borrowing. The block on Scotland borrowing on the financial markets, or even using unspent capital funding, to address immediate needs is simply not acceptable.

Much has been said today about the generosity of the UK Government but, of course, it is our money that we are talking about, whether we pay it in taxes or take a share of borrowing that must be paid back. The cabinet secretary has also laid out clearly that much of the additional funding that has been allocated by the UK Government is short term and is restricted to addressing the pandemic and its fallout.

The £1.1 billion spending that was announced on 15 February is, of course, welcome, and I particularly welcome the additional £120 million for mental health, which is necessary, given the trauma faced by many people and the social isolation imposed on them by the lockdown. I also very much welcome the extension of 100 per cent non-domestic rates relief for properties in the retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation sectors for all of 2021-22. As convener of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, I am acutely aware of the challenges that are faced by businesses in those sectors.

Tourism plays a proportionally larger role in Scotland’s economy than it does in the economies of other UK nations and regions. It directly contributes 229,000 jobs, or 8.8 per cent of all Scottish employment. That reliance on the tourism sector makes Scotland particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the global pandemic.

A recent survey by the Scottish tourism emergency response group found that, out of 3,000 businesses that responded, a fifth of those that are still in operation have no cash reserves left. With the likely continuation of both international and domestic travel restrictions, the sector will face further pressures this year. I therefore welcome the additional £25 million of funding that was announced through VisitScotland business support schemes in February, which builds on the £104 million package of support for tourism and hospitality that was announced in December.

The UK Government needs to do more if we are to save our tourism infrastructure, and that is why I was pleased to hear that Kate Forbes had written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him to extend the furlough scheme beyond April, which all the tourism witnesses who came before the committee asked for.

I welcome this budget for recovery, and I urge everyone to support it. I welcome the Covid consequentials so far, although we all know that demand continues to outstrip resources, and the Scottish Government’s inability to borrow on the financial markets or to use unspent capital funding to address what we need to spend now is completely unacceptable.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We now come to the closing speeches, starting with Claudia Beamish for Labour.

16:16  

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s continuing offer to support other parties in seeking consensus on the budget.

I start with Scottish Labour’s call for radical action and up-front investment, on which the budget still needs to deliver if we are to kick-start a green jobs recovery and to set firm—[Inaudible.]—on the path of social justice—[Inaudible.]. Shovel-ready energy efficiency programmes would mean skilled jobs creation—[Inaudible.]—poverty and—[Inaudible.].

Early action on—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Beamish, could you stop a minute? You are breaking up. Could you switch the visuals off? The sound might then improve: sometimes that trick works. Much though we like to see you, this is so that we can hear you.

Claudia Beamish

Okay—thank you. I now just have the sound on. Is that better?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Indeed—it is wonderful.

Claudia Beamish

That is a relief—good.

Early action on retrofitting will secure local jobs, prevent rising long-term costs and tangibly improve the lives of many people. Although the £45 million of additional funding that has been announced is welcome, it does not go far enough to prevent the increasing costs of decarbonisation that will face everyone over time and increasing fuel poverty.

There is also an issue around the overall level of public investment that is required. With their combined expertise, the Existing Homes Alliance Scotland, WWF Scotland, Friends of the Earth and other organisations are calling for a doubling of the energy efficiency budget to £244 million for the next financial year, front-loading increased investment in the immediate term.

This year, Scotland hosts the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and its build-up. As the sub-state host, Scotland must set an example for the rest of the world to follow with its approach to support for other countries on the front line of climate impacts. Despite that—[Inaudible.]—£3 million, and non-governmental organisations have called for that to rise to £10 million in what is a very significant year. Scottish Labour was a key voice in the Parliament for securing climate justice under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and the Scottish Government should play a leading role in that process.

In Scotland, the pandemic has exposed many pre-existing injustices, not least in the social care system. Scotland’s current care system is not working, despite the hard work and commitment of those employed in the sector. Many communities across Scotland, including in my region, are rural. In the south of Scotland, people are struggling to access the care that they need.

A survey by the GMB union revealed that more than half of social care workers feel undervalued by the Scottish Government, and 98 per cent of social care workers feel that they are not paid properly for their job. Despite the poverty pay that is endemic throughout the sector, those workers—many of them women, as Jackie Baillie stressed—have been at the forefront of caring for and protecting our loved ones in the present Covid crisis.

The SNP needs to show that it is serious about investing in social care. Our motion calls for exactly that in noting

“the calls for an immediate rise to £12 per hour for all social care workers followed by a review to establish steps to increase this to £15 an hour to fully recognise the value of their work.”

Jackie Baillie highlighted the cabinet secretary’s offer to continue to discuss the issue. If the Scottish Government supports that call, Labour will support the budget at stage 3. Scottish Labour is clear that transformation in social care is essential and that we must put people before profits.

We need to continue to discuss our other calls for funding in the budget. On local government, this year’s budget still falls short of a fair funding settlement, with councils left to foot the bill for their response to the pandemic. We cannot have a strong, green, fair economic recovery without well-resourced local government. It is central to supporting and growing local economies through direct and indirect job creation, local investment and regeneration; I emphasise that it is also central to reducing inequality.

In my region, the SNP administration in South Lanarkshire Council consulted on the closure of seven community libraries and cuts to school janitors. Those proposals were taken off the table following pressure from the Labour group, but the SNP administration and the Tories still voted for an austerity budget, rejecting Scottish Labour’s alternative.

There is an alternative to austerity, such as the successful approach of the Scottish Labour administration in North Ayrshire Council, where regional and anchor organisations support local businesses to bid for public sector contracts, and where co-operatives, employee ownership and social enterprises are encouraged. Money stays in the local economy.

As Jackie Baillie stressed, the pandemic has exposed the inequalities in our society, which have been here for far too long. As we look to recover from the Covid crisis, Scotland needs robust investment and support where it really matters, and Scottish Labour is arguing for that today. Cuts are not the answer to the crisis.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you Ms Beamish, and—

Jackson Carlaw (Eastwood) (Con)

On a point of order—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will just finish this point.

Thank you for your perseverance, Ms Beamish—we did hear you much better.

Jackson Carlaw

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I realise that these are unusual times, but a member who makes a speech during a debate from their place in the chamber is normally expected to return to hear the closing speeches in that same debate. Can you confirm whether that is no longer the current convention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is the convention, but if members indicate to me—unfortunately, they cannot send notes to the chair now—that they require to leave the chamber briefly, I usually let that happen. If you have observed that happening, it was with my permission.

I call Maurice Golden to close for the Conservatives.

16:22  

Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)

Kate Forbes said in her opening speech that her

“overarching objective is to support the people of Scotland”.

We agree on that.

I pay tribute to Bruce Crawford for his stewardship of the Finance and Constitution Committee, as well as for his contributions in the chamber and for being such a statesperson, which is something that we should all strive to achieve.

I welcome the positive measures in the budget, many of which can be delivered only as a result of Scotland’s being part of Britain, as Murdo Fraser highlighted in a rip-roaring speech that referred to

“the broad shoulders and the deep pockets of the British Government”.

My colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston echoed that and outlined how the Scottish Government is short-changing our agricultural sector.

With regard to the positives, increased funding for the NHS is always welcome, and is especially so during the pandemic. Front-line staff and the army of support workers behind the scenes have, in the past year, gone above and beyond to care for us, so it is only right that we give them additional resources. Willie Rennie highlighted that mental health support should be part of that, as well.

The budget’s tax measures are also welcome. Individuals can look forward to a freeze on income tax rates, thanks to the efforts of the Scottish Conservatives. We led the charge to prevent hard-pressed families’ tax bills from rising again, as they have because of past SNP budgets. Thankfully, the SNP listened this time.

The extension of 100 per cent rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses is also welcome. Again, the Scottish Conservatives pushed for that, because we understand how vital such support is in order to protect jobs. That point was well made by Rachael Hamilton, who was accompanied by some music.

Kate Forbes

As Maurice Golden knows, I have extended non-domestic rates relief in advance of the UK Government doing so. Does that suggest that the SNP is a bit quicker off the mark in supporting businesses than is its counterpart south of the border, which has still not extended the furlough scheme or non-domestic rates relief?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is time for interventions.

Maurice Golden

I hoped that Kate Forbes was intervening to welcome the unprecedented funding from the British Government, which has allowed the Scottish Government to be so generous, in certain cases. The initial SNP plan was to terminate the support early; I know that it will not have been easy for ministers to make such a significant public U-turn. However, by following the Scottish Conservatives plan, more than 14,000 Scottish businesses are now better able to survive the crisis. That includes our newspaper industry, which employs 3,000 people. The Scottish Conservatives felt that the SNP plan to end rates relief early was simply too risky for those jobs. Again, we intervened and, again, we saw a welcome U-turn from the SNP.

Jackie Baillie spoke about a budget for recovery. I agree with her that the budget offers such an opportunity, but as yet fails to deliver it. Perhaps that is because many businesses, including supply chain businesses, are still struggling to access support. They do not all have premises, so they are refused hardship and temporary closure funding. They are left only with local authority discretionary funds, for which eligibility varies across Scotland. In Renfrewshire, the discretionary fund is open only to businesses that pay business rates, which puts those that do not have premises back to square 1.

In Inverness, an amusement supply chain company that employs 43 people has been unable to secure funding, and is struggling to survive. The trade body, the British Amusement Catering Trade Association, has called for a discrete support package to help. I urge ministers to reconsider their opposition to that.

A cleaning business that is based in Barrhead has seen its income levels drop by 85 per cent. There is no guarantee that its hospitality-business clients will reopen fully at the end of April, and despite being the sole source of hygiene services to them, the business is not able to claim the strategic business framework grant because it is not classed as part of the supply chain. The business is not legally required to shut down, but it is not legally allowed to clean in people’s homes and, as such, it falls through the cracks. The local discretionary grant is only a one-off £2,000, which does not even touch the sides. Job losses are imminent. Many more businesses—too many to mention—are in the same position.

On the route map to recovery, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that

“it does not go as far or as fast as the Prime Minister did towards clarifying when we can get back to business”.

Derek Provan, who is the chief executive of AGS Airports Ltd, said:

“the First Minister provided a clear message the aviation industry is not a priority for the Scottish Government. We received no plan or framework against which we can start plotting any form of recovery.”

The Scottish Wedding Industry Alliance, which I assume is now close to the cabinet secretary’s heart, reports that the sector is in free-fall and is losing £6.5 million a day. January alone accounted for £205 million in lost business. Couples have lost hope—they cannot put their lives on hold any longer, and they do not believe that they will be able any time this year to have the weddings that they have dreamed of.

The budget choices show the SNP’s true character. Jobs, housing, transport, councils, a green recovery and even victims of crime—none of them are as important to the SNP as holding another, potentially illegal, referendum. There is still time for the SNP to do the right thing and defund referendum preparations, give councils the resources that they need and protect as many jobs as possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you very much, Mr Golden. You kept going, heroically, despite heckling from your neighbour. I call Kate Forbes to close for the Scottish Government.

16:30  

Kate Forbes

I am so glad that this has been a relatively traditional budget debate, in which the only party to mention independence has, of course, been the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

The past 12 months have been extraordinary and, as we approach the end of the parliamentary session, it is essential that we demonstrate unity for the people in Scotland and deliver the Scottish budget that is required to continue Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic. As we have heard, there are different nuances on the priorities and different concerns, but I think that we are all relatively agreed, right now, on what the priorities are. That is why the budget that I have presented to the Parliament will fund our key priorities for people, businesses and communities throughout Scotland. It also provides us with the opportunity to demonstrate how we work together as a Parliament to support Scotland through the most difficult of times.

In the first few minutes of my speech, I pay tribute, as others have done, to Bruce Crawford. I do not think that this will be the last time that we hear from him; I am sure that he will be back for stage 3. However, it is helpful to reflect on the fact that the reports of the Finance and Constitution Committee and most others have been consensual in their commentary on the budget that the Scottish Government has presented and on the priorities. The committee’s report, to which I will respond, highlighted the challenges of the fiscal framework that John Mason picked up on—that it has not met the challenges of Covid-related funding and that there is a need for a review, which I hope that all parties can get behind in the coming months.

I think that the budget demonstrates that either we can rise to the occasion, find consensus and make compromises, or we can just resort to the politics. Tom Arthur talked about what can be achieved in good faith. Consensus delivers results. Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that in securing funding in the budget for their ambition on mental health and for the delivery of certain policies on education recovery.

Given that we have been a minority Government for the past few years, there has been an opportunity every year for parties to secure concessions, find compromise, negotiate on their priorities and secure improvements to the budget. It is very easy to criticise and to rail against the Government; it is far harder to solve problems and provide solutions. The budget enables every party—and indeed every member—to provide those solutions every year. Patrick Harvie, as he said, has done that on behalf of the Scottish Green Party in the past few years. He has delivered substantial changes to the budget every year. This year, he identified the need to support household incomes in order to tackle inequalities, and he talked about public sector pay. We have already delivered on some of that, and I am open to continuing discussions on other things.

The Tories listed all the great things in the budget—that is great and I might clip that speech for Twitter tonight. There are in the budget a lot of great things on which the people of Scotland depend, and a lot of elements for which businesses and communities have asked. However, of course, those elements will be delivered only if the budget is passed, as I put to Murdo Fraser. Again, it is one thing to call for things but, when they are delivered, it is quite remarkable then to vote against them.

The Conservatives also talked, as they do generally, about the deep pockets of the union. In fact, it is the deep overdrafts of the union. One wonders how every other country around the world has funded its own Covid response without being part of this great United Kingdom, but, of course, they have done it in exactly the same way as the UK Government, which is through borrowing, at record low levels of interest. It is well documented that the Scottish Government cannot borrow and is therefore reliant on when and whether the UK Government comes to a decision on policies and generates Barnett consequentials.

Murdo Fraser

If we were not part of Britain, with the ability to borrow very cheaply on the international markets because of the strength of British financial institutions and the fifth-largest economy in the world, in what currency would we be borrowing money?

Kate Forbes

We have been very clear that the currency of an independent Scotland would be the currency that we have right now, which is the pound. Other small countries around the world have been able to borrow at record low interests and in some cases at negative interest rates. Meanwhile, I have had to wait for the UK Government to come to a decision on a policy that then generates funding that we can then apply to our decisions, and now we see it deviating completely from the Barnett formula and choosing to spend directly in devolved areas. Getting rid of the Barnett formula is an issue that has also raised concern in Wales and Northern Ireland among parties of a very different political persuasion.

Other members have made important points. I want to close with comments that were made by Tom Arthur and Annabelle Ewing, because they talked about the fact that, although there are big numbers in the budget, it is about the impact on real people, schools, children and young people. Within the constraints of every budget, which is required to be balanced, we have had to prioritise and make choices, and we have chosen to prioritise against our three objectives—the economic recovery, responding to the health pandemic and tackling health inequalities. This is a budget that responds to the moment. It includes support for business. Maurice Golden talked about the need to support the wedding industry, and the Scottish Government is the only Government in the UK that is supporting that industry.

The budget also sets the framework and the foundation stones for recovery over the coming year, because we need hope. We need to be bold and ambitious, and I am open, as I have been throughout the past few weeks, to working with other parties to ensure that we can be as ambitious and bold as possible in responding not only to the requests from across the chamber but, ultimately, to the needs of the people of Scotland, who depend on the Parliament to work together and deliver a budget.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first question is, that amendment S5M-24224.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion S5M-24224, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members may cast their votes now. This is a one-minute division.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Cameron. I will make sure that your vote is added to the voting roll.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division on amendment S5M-24224.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion S5M-24224, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill, is: For 53, Against 62, Abstentions 10.

Amendment disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that amendment S5M-24224.2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion S5M-24224, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Abstentions

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division on amendment S5M-24224.2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion S5M-24224, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill, is: For 22, Against 60, Abstentions 41.

Amendment disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-24224, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill at stage 1, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The vote is now closed. Members should let me know if they were unable to vote.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Abstentions

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division on motion S5M-24224, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill at stage 1 is: For 88, Against 31, Abstentions 5.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Budget (Scotland) (No.5) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-24223, in the name of Kate Forbes, on an appointment to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Government and the Finance and Constitution Committee that Professor Alasdair Smith be reappointed to the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is, that motion S5M-24236, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a stage 2 extension and suspension of standing orders, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that—

(a) consideration of the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 be completed by 5 March 2021;

(b) under Rule 12.3.3B of Standing Orders, the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee can meet, if necessary, at the same time as a meeting of the Parliament, during Members’ Business on Tuesday 2 March 2021, for the purpose of considering the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill at stage 2;

(c) for the purposes of consideration of the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, the second sentence of Rule 9.10.2 of Standing Orders is suspended.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes decision time.

Meeting closed at 18:16.  

The Convener (Bruce Crawford)

Good morning, and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2021 of the Finance and Constitution Committee. We have received apologies from Anas Sarwar, and I welcome Daniel Johnson as his substitute. As this is your first meeting as a substitute member, Daniel, I invite you to declare any relevant interests that you may have.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

Thank you for your welcome, convener. I do not have any declarations to make at this time, beyond my written entry in the register of members’ interests.

The Convener

Thank you, Daniel.

The first item on the agenda is to take evidence on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill at stage 2. We are joined for this item by Kate Forbes, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and by two Scottish Government officials: Dougie McLaren, deputy director, public spending; and Graham Owenson, team leader, local government finance, local taxation policy and business rates unit. You have a big title there, Graham. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting, and I invite the cabinet secretary, Kate Forbes, to make an opening statement.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance (Kate Forbes)

Before turning to the stage 2 amendments, I thank the committee for its report on the budget, to which I responded last week, and for its constructive approach to agreeing the timetable for this year’s budget process, given the delayed United Kingdom budget. The truncated timetable continues, with stage 3 of the budget bill scheduled for consideration tomorrow, following stage 1 consideration and the Scottish rate resolution, which were both on 25 February.

The amendments have the broad purpose of incorporating into the bill further spending proposals that have been developed since its introduction on 28 January, in light of the change in the funding position since then—and that seems to be a bit of an understatement.

Specifically, the funding changes are: an extra sum of approximately £1.1 billion, combining resource, capital and financial transactions, from the UK supplementary estimates for 2020-21, which were notified to us last month and are being carried over into 2021-22 outwith the reserve; and the headroom from the net consequentials of £1.175 billion of resource from the UK budget, minus the £500 million that we had already made at the bill’s introduction.

Today’s 13 amendments give effect to the proposed spending changes, and I hope that the supporting document that we submitted to the committee has been useful to members. In summary, with reference to that document, the changes relate to the proposals in my parliamentary statement on 16 February, totalling £881 million of resource, £197 million of capital grant and £41.5 million of financial transactions, together with further commitments totalling £526.8 million of resource. The only changes from the 16 February statement are that two of the capital funding elements are being profiled over two years rather than one, namely town centres and 20-minute neighbourhoods, in respect of which £30 million is proposed for 2021-22 from the £50 million total, and local bridges maintenance, which is to receive £12 million in 2021-22 from the £32 million total.

The further commitment costs are largely for the extension to the strategic framework business support grants that the First Minister announced on 23 February, together with the smaller items listed in the supporting document that have been firmed up to date, mainly in light of Covid pressures.

The costings for the extended non-domestic rates relief and the expanded self-isolation support grant are in line with the respective revised forecasts published on Friday by the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

In schedule 1, there are 12 amendments to portfolio-level, external-body and total allocations, with a further amendment to the overall cash authorisation at section 4. I understand that there will be one minor change in advance of amendments towards the end of this committee meeting.

Convener, with your permission, I will briefly update the committee on progress regarding negotiations with Opposition parties. I have secured a commitment from the Green Party to support the bill’s passage, reflecting today’s stage 2 amendments and some further amendments that I intend to lay at stage 3, subject to progress at stage 2. I am also continuing discussions with the Liberal Democrats, who had previously secured concessions at stage 1 on mental health, education recovery and business support in exchange for supporting the budget at stage 1.

The main additional commitments as part of the agreement with the Greens are: extending concessionary travel for young people in Scotland to under-22s, including 21 year-olds; expanding universal provision of free school meals to all primary school children in term time, phased over the next two years; and increasing the cash underpin in the public sector pay policy from £750 to £800 up to £25,000 of salary as well as increasing the pay rise from 1 to 2 per cent up to £40,000 of salary. The £100 million anti-poverty funding that I announced last month, and is in today’s amendments, will be used to provide a pandemic support payment to support people on low incomes, particularly families, and an additional £40 million of capital will be targeted at supporting green recovery and our net zero ambitions.

I will be able to say more at stage 3, but I wanted to take the opportunity to update the committee on that recent development. If sufficient progress is made with the Liberal Democrats today, I will update Parliament tomorrow.

I look forward to the committee’s questions.

The Convener

The clerks and officials are discussing the minor change to amendments that you mentioned as we proceed with the evidence session. That might require us to suspend for a short period at the end of the evidence session before we go into the formal amendment process, but we will come to that when we reach it.

Cabinet secretary, I will begin the questions. Following the United Kingdom budget last week, can you provide the committee with details of the block grant adjustment, the extent to which it differs from the provisional block grant adjustment, and how it will impact on the budget for 2021-22? You might have covered some of that already, but it would be helpful to put it on the record. If there is any technical detail that you require to follow up with your officials, please feel free to draw them into the discussion.

Kate Forbes

I am happy to follow up with more information. As you will appreciate, the UK Government gave us the option of either using the provisional or the UK budget block grant adjustments as the basis for the 2021-22 budget. The lateness of the UK budget has increased the volatility that we could face. We are still considering the overall impact of the block grant adjustments. We cannot cherry pick the block grant adjustments that we like; we have to take it as a whole, and some tax changes that the UK Government announced might deliver a more positive benefit, but others will have a negative impact. Once the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecast of tax revenues and social security expenditure is published, we will have a fuller picture of the impact.

I will follow up in writing to the committee about our final decision on block grant adjustments, but it is likely that we will continue to use the provisional block grant adjustments, not only because it will protect the Scottish budget in the short term—it might mean that we have more negative reconciliations later—but, until we are in a position of having fully understood the overall impact of the UK Government’s announcements, it reduces volatility to choose to use the provisional block grant adjustments.

My officials might want to come in on the detail of that, but otherwise I will follow up in writing.

Dougie McLaren (Scottish Government)

There is a bit of detail and some underlying numbers about the overall comparative effect between the provisional BGA and the updated one that we got last week, so it is up to the committee whether you want that in a follow-up letter or want some of that now.

The Convener

A follow-up letter that provides us with the specifics would be more appropriate. If the information is detailed, it is quite difficult for everyone to understand the flow in the middle of an evidence session, so a follow-up letter would be helpful.

Last week, on behalf of the committee, I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the findings in our budget report. Cabinet secretary, as you know, the report states:

“The Committee recommends that given borrowing costs are extraordinarily low, HM Treasury considers increasing the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers as a value for money means of supporting economic recovery.”

I note from your response to our budget report that you have also written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury

“to request that limits imposed on the Scottish Government’s borrowing and reserve powers are increased.”

Have you received a response yet? Are your officials having discussions with Treasury officials on that matter?

Kate Forbes

We have had conversations with Treasury officials on capital borrowing limits from the very beginning. To date, there has been no indication that additional capital borrowing powers will be granted to the Scottish Government. Unless there is anything further to come, the short answer is that there has not been any movement on capital borrowing.

My concerns are twofold. First, we know that we need to embark on a comprehensive programme of capital investment to drive economic recovery. That is why we set out our five-year capital spending review, which was based on a 5 per cent cut to our overall capital—[Inaudible.] I hoped that that cut would be reversed in the UK Government’s budget, because we know the importance of capital spending, but it has not been reversed.

My second concern is that it is quite clear from the UK’s approach to levelling up funds and the replacement of European Union structural funds with the shared prosperity fund that the UK Government intends to invest on a UK-wide basis rather than generating the equivalent Barnett consequentials. That is a political, ideological choice that means that the Scottish Government will receive less capital funding of its own to invest. Instead, the UK Government will leapfrog the Scottish Government and invest directly. That issue has caused huge concern to the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. We feared that it would happen, and our fears were realised after the UK Government’s budget. Over the weekend, there has been quite a lot of coverage about where the funding will be directed and why.

The Convener

I would like to make comments on that. Other members might follow up on that issue.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to ask about a couple of areas. My first question arises from what you have just told us about additional funds for an uplift in public sector pay. Some weeks ago, when we took evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, it raised the concern that, if it were to follow the pay policy that the Scottish Government had announced, it would put a substantial additional burden on its resource budget. Given what you have just announced about public sector pay, are you putting more money into local government to help it to meet the expectation of local government workers that they will also get a 2 per cent increase if they are paid up to £40,000 a year?

Kate Forbes

I will certainly engage with COSLA on the substance of today’s negotiations. I have already spoken to Gail Macgregor about that matter. It is important that we ensure that local government has an adequate settlement, but it is for local authorities, as the employers, to determine how the funding is used. It is not for the Scottish Government to tell COSLA how to use its funding and how to cover public sector pay.

During the past few weeks, I have set out the local government settlement, which includes a more than 3 per cent uplift in its core settlement, £259 million for Covid pressures and £275 million for Covid pressures next year. I will continue to engage with COSLA on the overall settlement, but, quite rightly, it is for local authorities to determine how the funding is used.

Murdo Fraser

Thank you for that answer but, when COSLA spoke to us, it was clear that it would struggle to even match the 1 per cent increase that you had previously announced. Has the Scottish Government done any costings on the likely impact on local government of the new pay policy?

10:15  

Kate Forbes

I say, on behalf of COSLA and local government, that it is really important that local government has the freedom to set its own policy. If I were to tell you now precisely how much money will go to local government for pay, that would be to ring fence funding, which all parties constantly criticise me for doing.

We understand that public sector pay policy not only has an overall impact on workforces that are subject to it, it is also a benchmark for workforce negotiations, whether those be in the health service, among teachers or in local government. Clearly, there will be an impact but ultimately, such negotiations are between employers, trade unions and the workforce. The Scottish Government is not party to fair pay negotiations between local government as an employer and the workforce.

Murdo Fraser

I have a separate question on land and buildings transaction tax. For the past 12 months, there has been a temporary extension to the threshold over which such tax is payable, which has been welcome throughout the period affected by Covid. You decided that you would not extend that beyond the end of the financial year. In his budget, the chancellor announced that it would be extended in England, which will generate Barnett consequentials. I notice that the Welsh Government has also decided to extend its own exemption until the end of June. Is there a particular reason for your decision not to extend that tax holiday, as we might call it, which the sector saw as being beneficial in stimulating demand?

Kate Forbes

It is a pertinent question, which I have weighed up really carefully because, ultimately, I want to ensure that our tax policies accelerate economic recovery rather than hinder it. My officials will correct me if I am wrong about this point, but I do not think that the changes to LBTT will necessarily generate consequentials. They will generate block grant adjustments, which of course will then be part of our decision making on whether to go with provisional or final block grant adjustments. However, we cannot cherry pick such adjustments.

Three factors were involved in arriving at my decision. The first is that the measure was always designed to help the property market to recover. We were clear from the outset that the change was temporary, was intended to support activity last year, and would end on 31 March 2021. In that period, the property market has recovered. Sales were at their highest-ever level in December, rising 360 per cent since April and 180 per cent since the temporary nil-rate band was introduced. Therefore there has been recovery.

My second point is that such recovery happened despite the fact that the nil-rate band was at a lower threshold than in England. We have therefore seen recovery despite a lower tax cut, as it were, in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That means that when it comes to the cliff edge of 31 March, the calls for extending the nil-rate band have been much stronger in relation to stamp duty, because tax has been reduced by up to £15,000 and there appear to be concerns about the speed with which house purchases are progressing. I am not aware of similar concerns in Scotland in relation to an overall blockage in the house purchase market or the impact that such a cliff edge might have. There is far more to gain from extending the band in England than there is in Scotland.

My final point is about choices. When I look at the need for support among the business community and the Scottish economy right now, the number 1 ask has consistently been about non-domestic rates. In Scotland, we have chosen to go further on that aspect, in that we have adopted 100 per cent rates relief for a full year for more sectors. That is a conscious choice. However, the money all comes from the same budget. I think that non-domestic rates relief will do more to support economic recovery than extending the LBTT nil-rate band. For first-time buyers, there will continue to be a higher threshold of the nil-rate band.

Murdo Fraser

That is a helpful response, cabinet secretary, but your answer is based on the assumption that extending the tax relief period would be a cost to the Scottish Government. I was interested to look at the figures for last year, which showed that, in the period from September, the revenue from LBTT was £223 million, which was £39 million more than was generated the year before. That would suggest that, in fact, reducing the threshold level had increased the amount of tax that had been brought in. What modelling have you done to show that the change will not reduce revenues rather than increase them?

Kate Forbes

I have two issues with that evidence. The first is that your figures are only from September onwards, as you said, so they do not take into account LBTT revenues across the year. There has been some press coverage of the question of whether this tax change could lead to higher LBTT revenues and whether, therefore, it should be continued. However, it is revenue data for the third quarter onwards rather than the whole year to date, and we need to compare the years, because we know that there was a lot of pent-up demand because of lockdown coming to an end in the summer, which we must take into account.

The second part to that is that a comparison of the housing markets in Scotland and England shows that Scotland has seen record levels of transactions and LBTT revenues, despite the fact that the nil-rate band threshold is half of what it is in England. In other words, we have seen an equal recovery, despite the tax threshold being lower. Last July, if I had done what the UK Government did and given a tax cut to a buoyant market, that would not have been a great use of our budget. I have to use the budget in ways that genuinely improve our economic recovery, rather than giving tax cuts to a buoyant market.

Murdo Fraser

I am sure that we could pursue that further, but I am happy to leave it for now.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I will pursue the issue of LBTT. Is part of your thinking that we need to target those most in need, cabinet secretary? First, in a constituency such as mine, many people do not own their houses, so a tax holiday will not help them. Secondly, the flats in the estate in which I live are going for about £70,000. Again, a tax break will not help those people at the lower end of the scale. Is that also part of your thinking?

Kate Forbes

It is part of our thinking. With regard to supporting first-time buyers specifically, a cut to LBTT on its own does not support first-time buyers. We have in place a first-time buyer relief that increases the nil rate band to £175,000, which means that first-time buyers save up to £600 in tax. However, that sits alongside a number of policy initiatives to support first-time buyers. The chancellor took a leaf out of our book by supporting first-time buyers with deposits, which is something that we already had in Scotland. Using LBTT in isolation is a very blunt tool that, in some cases, risks pushing property prices higher as opposed to helping first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder.

John Mason talked about the average cost of a house in Scotland. Setting a threshold at £250,000 still took eight out of 10 properties out of paying tax. That tells you a lot about the average house price in Scotland. In some areas, the thought of even getting to a property price of £250,000 is outside the realms of possibility. Our position is to help as many people as possible to get on the housing ladder or, at least, to have a safe, secure and warm home. That goes alongside all the other initiatives that are, arguably, more important, such as building affordable social housing.

John Mason

That is great. Thank you.

A couple of points arise from your letter of 2 March, to which you referred earlier. In response to comments from the committee, you wrote:

“without full devolution of tax powers, as we have called for ... our ability to respond to Scotland-specific risks ... will always be limited.”

Can you expand on that? How are the limited tax powers restricting us?

Kate Forbes

I would answer that in two ways. First, over the past few years, as more taxes have been devolved, there has been an interplay between devolved taxes and reserved taxes. We have seen that with the effective tax rate and the marginal tax rate for some taxpayers when it comes to income tax and national insurance contributions. We see that in supporting the economy. Arguably, the only business tax that we have is non-domestic rates—which are not, in fact, a business tax.

As we have seen during the pandemic, managing risk requires a toolbox of different taxes for supporting people. If we have only one business tax, it will be a very blunt instrument that does not allow for the nuance that is needed when it comes to the pandemic’s impact on Scotland. Economically, we have seen that some businesses have fared relatively well in the pandemic. We note the impact on tech businesses. They and supermarkets have done relatively well, whereas other businesses are on their knees. Because we have only one business tax—non-domestic rates—we cannot nuance it sufficiently to help those in need while continuing to take revenue from those who do not need a tax cut.

Those would be my two answers. First, in managing recovery, we need a mix of taxes. Secondly, we know that there is an interplay between reserved and devolved taxes, which is not helpful to Scottish taxpayers. To manage the risks and shocks to the Scottish economy, we need a broader range of tools.

John Mason

In your letter, you touched on the UK shared prosperity fund, which the convener has also mentioned. Do you have any more indications from the UK Government as to where that is going? Is there a danger that, although we want to move to more active travel and public transport, for example, and we might be investing in railways, the UK Government could be investing in roads, so there would be a clash of priorities? Is that one of the risks?

Kate Forbes

That is a risk. We have it on record that the UK Government intends to manage the shared prosperity fund. We have seen what it has done on the levelling-up funds. That seems to be a bizarre methodology for allocating capital funding to certain areas but not others. I do not believe that that has been published yet, unless anybody has seen it; I have certainly not seen it.

As somebody who is speaking to you from what I like to call the epicentre of civilisation, which is also known as Dingwall, in the Highlands, and which is in a region that has benefited enormously from European Union structural funds, I point out that there are very few local rural roads that we might drive down without seeing signs that say that they have been funded with EU structural funding. We know that regions such as ours have benefited enormously from those funds, but I do not see a significant increase in capital funding coming from the UK Government to replace what has been removed by Brexit.

In my view, you are absolutely right: the UK Government will make choices and decisions about where to invest for what appear to be pretty political purposes, without necessarily reflecting the priorities of the people of the area concerned. We are committed to investing in the hospitals and schools that need capital investment. We will wait and see whether the UK Government does similarly.

Daniel Johnson

We have all been noting with interest the row about pay for nurses that has been sparked following the UK budget. The one thing that the pandemic has done has been to underline that its burden has not fallen equally on everyone’s shoulders and that some people have very much been on the front line, shouldering more of the burden than others. The 1 per cent offer simply did not reflect the value and worth of the work that nurses have been doing.

Did that row cause the Scottish Government to reflect somewhat? This morning, we have heard about a 2 per cent pay increase for public sector workers, but is there a case for considering whether certain workers deserve more, not just for the work that they have been doing but because of the critical role that they play in building resilience into public services? After all, Covid is not going away.

Do nurses deserve more than 1 per cent? Do they deserve more than 2 per cent?

10:30  

Kate Forbes

I would agree with the sentiment of Daniel Johnson’s question. I remind those who are watching this evidence session or examining our public sector pay policy that the public sector pay policy does not apply to a number of different workforces, including those in the national health service, as there will be separate pay deal negotiations within the NHS. Although the public sector pay policy acts as a benchmark, there are still separate negotiations involving trade unions, employers and the workforce.

I would unequivocally say that the public sector pay policy that we have adopted is more generous and that it tries to balance the need to recognise our public sector workers—not just with rounds of applause but with fair remuneration—with the challenges of affordability. I have spoken today about a guaranteed cash underpin of £800. That compares with £250 south of the border. We have introduced a 2 per cent threshold to smooth the funding curve through the public sector pay policy, and we have committed to pay at least a real living wage of £9.50, which will be an increase of 2.2 per cent.

I agree with the sentiment of Daniel Johnson’s question. Not all the answers will be given today, as the workforce negotiations still have to take place over the coming months. The public sector pay policy sets the benchmark, but it is not the final destination.

Daniel Johnson

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, just a few days ago, the Scottish Government confirmed that nurses would be getting just a 1 per cent pay rise, albeit on an interim basis? Is she saying that that is not the case, or will she be announcing an update on that interim pay settlement?

Kate Forbes

That precedes the workforce negotiations. NHS agenda for change, NHS doctors and dentists, local government, including teachers and social workers, police officers, firefighters and colleges will use the public sector pay policy as a benchmark and a reference point, but the proper, substantial negotiations still have to take place.

Daniel Johnson

So it is just 1 per cent. That is fine.

I want to ask about other workers who have been playing a critical role. The cabinet secretary will not be surprised to hear me bring up the subject of pay for those who work in social care. The median pay for social care workers is just £9.50 an hour. Does she feel that that reflects the value of the work? More important, does she think that there is a role for social care workers to play in baking in the resilience that we must bake into our public services, given the savings that they can make if they are performing their job as well as they can? Frankly, that is dependent on pay. Could the cabinet secretary make some comments about what we need to do to improve the pay of social care workers?

Kate Forbes

Yes, I can. That has featured in budget discussions. I said in my stage 1 budget statement that I was keen to explore everything possible to support social care workers more. Our commitment right now is that we will implement a collective bargaining approach, and we are agreed that we will adopt the recommendations that emerge through collective bargaining with trade unions. That is a substantial shift in position, because it says that we will sign up to the outcome of that collective bargaining, and that is a fundamental step in the right direction as part of the move to a national care service.

Right now, as I have already outlined, the living wage that we are paying is higher than it is elsewhere. I would like to go further, and I would like to consider that as part of workforce negotiations.

When it comes to ensuring that there is funding in place, we have got to do it properly and well. The Scottish Government provides funding for workers in the private sector, but we need to get a more sustainable approach to ensure that social care workers in the public, private and voluntary sectors have a fair wage, and we will do that as part of the approach to collective bargaining.

Daniel Johnson

Does the cabinet secretary really think that the living wage is sufficient pay for people who have such a critical role? Surely we could just bypass those negotiations, given the very clear claim and call being made by the GMB for £15 an hour. Surely that is a pretty straightforward position that the cabinet secretary could address right now in the budget.

Kate Forbes

To put it bluntly, I have to ensure that everything is affordable. We have to ensure that our priorities can be implemented. I do not dispute the importance of fair remuneration, but I am required to balance the budget, and I have to ensure that we can implement what we promised to do. When it comes to an increase in pay, £15 per hour is equivalent to a salary of around £30,000 a year. That will have a knock-on impact on other workforces, particularly nurses in the NHS. The figure cannot just be plucked out of a hat. It needs to be affordable, and it needs to be implemented, and that is why we have whole-heartedly endorsed our approach to collective bargaining. We need to honour that process.

The Convener

I just want to check that the noise outside my house is not interfering with anybody’s sound quality. There is a gentleman using a digger. Kate, is it interfering with your hearing me?

Kate Forbes

I can hear it vaguely, but it is not interrupting or disturbing me.

The Convener

That is good. Patrick Harvie is next.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)

Background noise is usually the problem that I have, speaking from Dumbarton Road in Partick.

I will pursue some of the same issues as Daniel Johnson on public sector pay. In particular, when the Scottish Government’s public sector pay policy was originally announced, in relation to the NHS, it was quite accurately described as an interim settlement because that NHS pay review is still due. Indeed, negotiations will take place on a range of other sectoral bases in the future. It strikes me as a little startling if Labour’s position is now, as we have just heard, that collective bargaining negotiations should be bypassed. I want to clarify my understanding that what you have announced today, following discussions with the Scottish Greens, is an enhanced position, which will still be an interim position ahead of those sectoral negotiations such as the NHS Scotland pay review. It is an enhanced interim position and the collective bargaining negotiations that are taking place, which I would like to think most political parties would support, still have the importance that they deserve to have.

Kate Forbes

Yes, I hope that most political parties support that approach to collective bargaining as well. Patrick Harvie is right to characterise the commitment that we have made today on public sector pay policy as a significantly enhanced position. It increases the cash underpin to £800. It also increases the pay rise from 1 per cent to 2 per cent for salaries up to £40,000. He is right that this acts as a reference point, and there are a number of pay deals that are up for negotiation over the coming months. That is for my colleagues to take a lead on, whether that is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, equivalent colleagues in other areas or, indeed, as Murdo Fraser said at the outset, local government, where there are different employers.

In particular, most people will be watching with interest to see what the final settlement is for the health and social care workforce, who have been on the front line. The approach to collective bargaining with the care sector, in particular, is new and, we hope, an indication of the respect that we have for the social care workforce.

Patrick Harvie

The backdrop to that is that, for a significant number of years, Scotland has attempted to have a better public sector pay approach than the UK, which has, over recent years, had a policy much closer to a freeze. There is that historical difference and the fact that a progressive approach is being taken with the underpin, which effectively amounts to well over 4 per cent at the bottom end of the pay scale—for a new teaching assistant, it would represent well over 4 per cent, and for a starting nurse it would approach 4 per cent. Those changes mean that Scotland will not only have significantly better public sector pay, given the historical context, but significantly better equality in public sector pay, having taken steps to close the public sector pay gap.

Kate Forbes

We have taken a more progressive approach. The agreement that we reached with the Green Party today makes that more progressive as well as fairer for those who are earning less. To put that in context, the majority of staff nurses are at the top of band 5 and are on a salary of £31,600, while senior nurses at the top of band 6 are on a salary of around £39,000. Today, we have announced a public sector pay policy of that underpin of £800, which as you say, is substantially more, as well as a 2 per cent pay increase up to a threshold of £40,000.

Although the NHS workforce will still be subject to separate negotiations and those commitments just act as a benchmark, I hope that they reflect the importance that we place on the work of those on the front line, recognising their efforts not just with a round of applause, but also with a fairer approach to pay.

Patrick Harvie

Finally, on the capital side, several issues have been discussed, including public transport, agri-environment schemes, energy efficiency and the use of the town centre fund to support sustainable transport. The phrase “green recovery” is very easy to throw around—many Governments are talking about green recovery but are not quite defining how that will shape economic recovery from the effects of Covid.

How would you describe the concept of a green recovery in the Scottish Government’s plans? If there are further consequentials from the UK Government as a result of its deciding how it will define its economic recovery plan—there was not very much on that in the UK budget—how do you intend to continue to ensure that all political parties can feed into those discussions, given that, in the past, in-year budget revisions have tended to involve less in the way of interparty and cross-parliamentary scrutiny?

Kate Forbes

I recognise not just the importance of investing in low-carbon initiatives but the fact that we have very ambitious targets for transitioning to net zero. We have to ensure that every penny that we invest is helping us to reach those targets, because they are extremely challenging. In the capital spending review, there is a five-year commitment of an additional £2 billion of low-carbon investment through the low carbon fund. Bluntly put, if that £2 billion is going on low-carbon investment, it is not going on high-carbon investment. We must also ensure that the £1.6 billion over five years to transform the heat and energy efficiency of buildings is supported, not just because it helps us to meet our targets but because, in making those investments, we will revitalise our economy.

We have choices. We can choose to invest in a way that helps us to transition to net zero or we can invest in a way that makes that more difficult. The approach that we have taken demonstrates our commitment to using money in a way that boosts rather than hinders that transition.

However, the focus of this committee session is, of course, on next year. In my statement on 16 February, members saw, in recognition of the Greens’ priority of energy efficiency, an additional £45 million for energy efficiency next year. I have also announced an additional £40 million of capital targeted at supporting a green recovery and our net zero ambitions. In the short term, there is additional capital out of a very challenging capital settlement. I hope that you will see that investment continue and grow over the next five years in an effort to meet our ambitious targets.

10:45  

Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

You have identified around £90 million to go towards supporting local authorities with the council tax freeze. What assessment has been made of that figure? Are you satisfied that it is a robust figure to cover those costs? What options will local authorities have, given that you have indicated that they will have some options?

Kate Forbes

That £90 million is the equivalent of what councils would have raised with a 3 per cent increase in council tax. It is a robust figure. I am not aware of any dispute about that £90 million reflecting what councils might have been able to raise if they had increased council tax by 3 per cent. That money allows us to support household incomes as well as ensure that, from the council tax perspective, there is no detriment to services, as councils can draw down that funding.

There is a choice for councils. I have said that there is no absolute commitment or requirement, but councils can choose to compensate for a freeze on council tax by making use of that £90 million fund.

Dr Allan

How does that policy option affect people in different income brackets? For instance, do you think that that measure or, indeed, other measures for local authorities will likely benefit people on lower incomes?

Kate Forbes

The council tax freeze has to be seen alongside the council tax reduction scheme, which explicitly supports around 500,000 low-income households in respect of local tax liabilities that they would not have been able to meet. Although there is much dispute and debate about how to make council tax more progressive and fairer, the council tax reduction scheme does that, because it supports low-income households.

During the pandemic, we have seen an increase in applications to the council tax reduction scheme, which indicates that those who are in need are making use of that scheme. Alongside that, the council tax freeze helps countless families, some of whom have been working from home and have seen their household bills, such as their energy bills and other utilities bills, increase. If we are helping businesses with their tax for a year, we should help households with their tax bills, as well.

Dr Allan

Finally, what estimate have you made of the pressures that local authorities have identified as existing on their budgets just now as a consequence of the Covid crisis? How can or should the Government be involved in that?

Kate Forbes

Local government has done a sterling job over the past year. It has been on the front line, and the settlement reflects that point. The funding for core services in the settlement needs to be looked at. There will be a 3.1 per cent funding increase for local revenue services. That money is the cash for local government day-to-day spending. There have been Covid-related pressures on local government, which is why I initially announced £259 million of non-recurring Covid consequentials. That money is not ring fenced; there are no strings attached. Councils can use that funding to address Covid-19 pressures, and that has now been agreed with COSLA.

On 16 February, I increased the funding to local government by £275 million. Again, there are no strings attached to that; it is not ring fenced. Councils can use that for the Covid pressures that they face. Overall, that is a fair local government settlement that recognises the particular pressures on local government, and we have now agreed the distribution of the funding streams with COSLA.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I will start with questions on the council tax freeze and then move on to questions on pay. Does the cabinet secretary intend to build the £90 million into local government’s baseline, so that councils do not have to find 3 per cent at the start of the new financial year before they do anything else with their budget?

Kate Forbes

As Jackie Baillie will know, given that we have still not completed stages 2 and 3 of this year’s budget bill, I am unlikely to start setting next year’s budget. We will consider all such matters with COSLA in next year’s budget negotiations.

We want to ensure that there are fair settlements for local government not only this year but next year. Next year, it is unlikely that the Scottish Government will be in receipt of substantially more Covid consequential funding, so it is likely that next year’s budget will be even more challenging than this year’s budget. We will have to weigh up all such matters and come to a conclusion with COSLA.

Jackie Baillie

I was not asking the cabinet secretary to reflect on next year’s budget. She is able to build the funding into the baseline in this year’s budget, which would avoid any problems in the future.

However, I will move on to some general questions. How much of the substantial increase in the budget that she is now enjoying is recurring funding and how much is non-recurring funding? How much of this year’s Covid funding is she carrying forward into next year?

Kate Forbes

In answer to the second question, I am carrying forward all £1.1 billion of the late consequentials that were announced in the UK supplementary estimates and were notified to us in the past week or so. Those consequentials will be carried over into next year outwith the reserve, which is also what the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments are doing, because they will be of more use next year.

In relation to additional funding this year, there is £1.175 billion of net resource consequentials, the vast majority of which relate to Covid, so they are non-recurring. The recurring amount is negligible. I can provide a bit more information on that in letters—it is quite complex in terms of what has been deducted and what has been added. About £9 million of the £1.175 billion is in the recurring space, and it relates largely to education.

Jackie Baillie

However, if I am correct, there was a recurring uplift just shy of £1 billion in your main budget. Is that right?

Kate Forbes

In the UK Government’s spending review, it was announced that we would get £1.3 billion—if I remember correctly, off the top of my head—of additional funding. I cannot find the figures now, but I will write to the committee on precisely what recurring funding was given to us.

Jackie Baillie

Thank you. That is helpful. It is a substantial uplift, by anybody’s reckoning.

How much is being set aside in the budget to cover nurses’ pay if it exceeds the interim 1 per cent increase?

Kate Forbes

The health portfolio, which is very mindful of the upcoming negotiations, will absorb those costs. There have been a lot of conversations with unions, but I understand that agreement has not been reached. We know that funding will need to be sourced to cover the increase, but that funding is not held corporately; it is held within the health portfolio.

Jackie Baillie

Okay, but you will have had to assess the cost of doing a deal with another political party. How much is the enhanced public sector pay deal, which will be a framework for nurses’ pay?

Kate Forbes

It is approximately—I stress “approximately”, because the public sector pay policy acts as a reference point—equivalent to £100 million.

Jackie Baillie

Actually, then, that is not such a huge sum, given the number of public sector workers in Scotland.

Kate Forbes

That is right. People sometimes forget that the public sector pay policy does not apply to many of the workforces that the public and press coverage are most interested in. The policy acts as a benchmark, but it does not directly apply to, for example, agenda for change, which is for NHS workers, or to local government. It is used as a benchmark and employers then negotiate with their workforces the final settlement for those workforces.

Jackie Baillie

Sure, but it is a helpful guide, and it usually determines where public sector pay ends up.

For the record, I indicate that Labour of course supports collective bargaining, but we do not regard it as an either/or option or as an alternative to putting in place a substantial pay increase for social care workers. You would expect me to say this but, particularly on international women’s day, there is an opportunity to create a step change in pay for that sector, which is largely female and low paid. Why has the cabinet secretary rejected Labour’s reasonable approach? We said that we want £15 an hour but that we would accept £12 an hour as an immediate uplift, with a process in place to review that, which would be akin to collective bargaining.

Kate Forbes

I appreciated the Labour Party’s constructive approach, and I spent a considerable amount of time doing the sums and figuring out what might be possible, because I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment of wanting to provide support to our carers, many of whom were forgotten about until the pandemic, when we realised just how much we depend on them.

I have several points to make in response, but the starting position in all this is that Scotland provides a much more generous living wage benchmark across the care workforce than is the case elsewhere. On the funding, I would like to do many things, but I need to have the funding available, and the public sector pay freeze south of the border has a material impact.

The GMB asked for £15 an hour for our carers. That would equate to a salary of just over £29,000 every year, up from a £19,500 salary, which is the equivalent of £10 an hour. That would be a substantial increase in pay of about 58 per cent. There are workforces in the public, private and voluntary sectors, and the Scottish Government would have to give due consideration to helping those sectors to afford the increases. There would also be an impact on bands 1 to 5 in the NHS workforce, under agenda for change. Therefore, the implications for affordability are substantial and significant—it could cost more than £2 billion to implement the £15 per hour. Obviously, an increase to £12 per hour would cost less, but it would still be substantially more than the funding that we have available.

People often talk about the huge increase in funding that the Scottish Government has had this year, but all of that is related to Covid—it is Covid consequentials, which means that they are non-recurring. We get them in one year with no guarantee that they will come in the following years—in fact, they will not come in the following years. Therefore, pay has to be afforded out of our recurring funding, because pay is, by its nature, recurring. Right now, I just cannot take the risk of using Covid consequentials to the tune of £0.5 billion without the guarantee that they will be forthcoming next year.

I agree, however, that we will implement what is recommended through collective bargaining. The Government has taken steps to put in place collective bargaining. I would not want to undermine collective bargaining; we are committed to implementing what comes from collective bargaining in the care sector.

Jackie Baillie

I note that the cabinet secretary told us earlier that she had £1.3 billion in recurring moneys in the budget. It could have been afforded.

11:00  

The Convener

I will leave it to the cabinet secretary to decide whether to comment on that when she answers Dean Lockhart’s questions.

Dean Lockhart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned EU structural funds. Table 7.04 of the budget, which deals with spending plans under the EU structural funds, is blank for the periods from 2019 to 2022, reflecting the fact that the funds have been suspended since 2019, because of non-compliance by the Scottish Government. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, as a result of that suspension of EU funds, more than £100 million has been decommitted and has been lost to the Scottish budget?

Kate Forbes

Dean Lockhart asks a remarkable question when we consider that EU structural funds will be suspended for time immemorial on the basis of what his Government and party have subjected Scotland to in removing us from the EU. His faux outrage about EU structural funds is misplaced. We know how much our communities and our capital infrastructure have benefited from the EU, and we know that the promises to replace that funding without detriment to Scotland have been broken and that our fishermen, farmers and crofters will not see a like-for-like replacement in funding after our being taken out of the EU.

We also know that none of the devolved Governments will be in charge of distributing that capital funding to reflect the priorities of the people of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The UK Government has chosen to take those powers for itself. It will use the levelling up fund to benefit the north-east of England and that Scotland will lose out on that funding.

We will manage our internal requirements regarding EU structural funding. Mr Lockhart will know, if he was listening last week, that there has been no detriment to the communities that depend on that funding. There will be a huge detriment to those communities as a result of EU structural funding completely drying out not because of how the people of Scotland voted, but because of a political decision taken by his Government.

Dean Lockhart

I am not sure that you have answered my question, cabinet secretary. You will be glad to hear that the UK Government has committed to replace the EU funds in full and I am sure that they will not be decommitted or lost in the manner that EU funding seems to have been lost in Scotland.

In response to my question, can you confirm that those EU funds have been in suspension and that no funds have been available since 2019, which amounts to more than £100 million in lost funding?

Kate Forbes

It is not quite as simple as that. I am happy to write to Dean Lockhart with more information. We have been working with the EU to ensure that the processes in place meet its standards. We have ensured that funding is available for the community groups and others who depend on that. It is an issue of the processes between us and the EU, not of those between the Scottish Government and the communities that rely on that funding.

Dean Lockhart

It would be great if you could confirm that in writing, cabinet secretary.

There have also been reports that the EU Commission might impose penalties on the Scottish Government as a result of non-compliance. Figures of up to £190 million have been reported. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether she is aware of any penalties that the EU Commission might impose? Has she provided in the budget for any contingent liabilities, or are there other accounting adjustments in it, to deal with the suspension of the EU programme?

Kate Forbes

I cannot confirm that, but I can add that to my letter.

I know that Ivan McKee in particular was working on that about a year and a half ago. It has come into the public domain through newspaper reports only relatively recently. I will ensure that we have the latest information to share with Dean Lockhart as a result of the meeting.

Dean Lockhart

That would be helpful. However, in general terms, is it right to say that the Scottish Government has had to step in and use taxpayers’ money to replace EU funds that have been lost?

Kate Forbes

There is a slight difference between money being lost and the process being temporarily suspended. That distinction is important to make. Work is on-going—although a lot of work has concluded—to ensure that all parties are happy with the process. That does not necessarily mean that money has been lost.

Dean Lockhart

I look forward to your written response.

We have discussed before the Scottish National Investment Bank’s budget. Table 7.01 shows that, over the past two years, the bank has been allocated a total of £378 million. However, according to a parliamentary answer that I received last week, the bank has invested less than 15 per cent of that budget, which means that £320 million has not been invested. Given the huge demand for emergency funding from firms that are struggling as a result of the pandemic, why is the vast majority of the bank’s budget yet to be spent?

Kate Forbes

The bank became operational only in November last year. It is the single biggest economic development in the Scottish Parliament’s history and has already taken steps in doing deals. When I say that the bank is operational, I mean that it is recruiting the team—the staff—and putting in place a chief executive.

The bank has made a good start and has £200 million in fresh capital for investment next year. The funding was important to the process of being established, but what is really important is that funding is in place for the bank to start investing and that the bank is now operational.

Dean Lockhart

I appreciate that the bank has been operational for only four months or so, but is it not relatively quick and easy to identify a stream of funding from its budget that can be made immediately available to the thousands of firms that are struggling as a result of the pandemic? Has a conscious policy decision been made not to use the bank’s budget to help such firms?

Kate Forbes

That question misunderstands on two fronts the bank’s role. The bank was set up to be independent of the Scottish ministers. Ministers like telling a host of public bodies what their priorities are and what to do, but the bank is by necessity independent and makes its own decisions about investment.

The bank is mission led. Its primary mission is to provide investment that is needed to put business at the forefront of driving forward our net zero ambitions, but it is independent of the Scottish ministers.

In relation to investment, I want a step change in economic growth. I want the bank to power innovation and accelerate the move to a high-tech, globally competitive and inclusive economy. That is important, but that does not mean that we are not supporting struggling businesses—we are doing that and have done that throughout the pandemic. For survival grants, we have largely used our enterprise agencies, which the bank does not replace, as well as local government. Those grants will continue until the Scottish economy is back open and trading. A slight distinction is necessary in relation to who tells the bank what to do and what the bank’s role is in delivering a step change in Scottish economic growth.

Dean Lockhart

The bank’s budget in this financial year is £240 million and it looks as if about £190 million of that will be unspent, given that we are close to the end of the financial year. What will happen to the £190 million of budget that the bank has not spent in this financial year? Will it be rolled over? Is it part of the budget line item for the next financial year?

Kate Forbes

Not explicitly. If I remember correctly, I will be back at the committee on Wednesday with the spring budget revision, which will give the final figures for spend in each budget line this year. It will take into account the most recent consequentials and money that has been reutilised when demand has been lower than expected.

No money sits there unused. In our overall budget management every year, we constantly try to get the most out of every penny. That means that, if there is budget available, we can redeploy it. We saw that in the summer budget revision, when we used some unspent financial transactions to support, I think on that occasion, loans to landlords who were struggling in the housing sector. We have reused funding throughout the pandemic. The nature of the pandemic has meant that we have had to work very quickly to redeploy funding so that it is used for those who are most in need.

Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)

As has already been outlined, the Scottish Government has gone further than the UK Government by extending 100 per cent non-domestic rates relief for the retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation sectors for 12 months. Given the disparity between the two Governments’ approaches, will you take the opportunity to explain the Scottish Government’s thinking behind its welcome move?

Kate Forbes

I did that because it was the number 1 ask from businesses for support next year. Even when the economy opens up and businesses start trading, we will want to support businesses as much as possible to recover. We hope that reducing the tax burden for a year, while they recover, will allow them to keep staff and help with start-up costs. We will revisit the policy this time next year.

I extended the relief before the UK Government’s budget to provide certainty. We are nearing the end of the financial year and businesses are making decisions about what funding they have available, so I wanted to give them as much notice as possible, which meant taking a bit of a risk by announcing it before the UK Government.

The UK Government has now made an announcement. It is not going as far as we are—it is not providing 100 per cent rate relief for a full year—but I remain committed to the policy, having given the assurance to businesses that they will not pay non-domestic rates next year. However, inevitably, that means that, where funding does not completely cover our policy choices, we have to make decisions about what we do and do not prioritise.

Fulton MacGregor

The decisions that you have made will be welcome to businesses.

Earlier, you spoke about the grants that were put in place, and, as I have said in a previous committee meeting, I thank the North Lanarkshire Council’s grant team for the way that it has dealt with those—it has been absolutely fantastic. The grants have helped businesses in my constituency and across the country. You talked about their continuing until the economy has bounced back. What will that mean? Will the grants continue until the economy opens for a certain sector, or will they continue in some form until the economy is back to pre-pandemic levels? Certain businesses might be able to open over the next couple of months, but the number of customers using them might not return to the same levels for some time after that. Has that been given any thought in the budget planning?

Kate Forbes

Yes, I have given a lot of thought to that. Businesses have been clear that one of their fears is that, when we transition from lockdown—when an area moves from level 4 to a lower tier—the closure grants will stop. We have committed to a transition or lag payment, so a business will continue to receive £2,000 or £3,000 for up to four weeks after they come out of level 4, out of closure, to help with those costs.

I know that I say it all the time, but one of the challenges is that the UK Government has done something different. It has chosen to conclude the grants at the end of March and pay a big top-up grant or a big restart grant in April. That is a different approach, and I will be working with business organisations to understand their preferences and what is important to them, with regard to having either on-going grants or one big restart grant.

Inevitably, that means that the consequentials that have been generated by the UK Government’s policy do not go as far as we would like. They do not cover our commitment to extending the strategic framework business fund indefinitely, so we will need to make some decisions about that, alongside the additional funding that we need to put into extending the non-domestic rates relief.

Fulton MacGregor

Are the expected extension of the grants for a period after opening and the UK Government’s one-off campaign in the same ball park in terms of value?

11:15  

Kate Forbes

They are not. The restart grants generate consequentials that are less than what we would need to continue the strategic framework business fund until, for example, June.

Fulton MacGregor

I will stay on that line of questioning. I have asked before and, as you probably expect, I will ask again about businesses that might not open for some time, even after we start to come out of lockdown. That is not restricted to nightclubs and soft-play businesses, but they are two of the main examples that have received funding recently. Has the fact that such businesses might not be able to open for some time, even after restrictions are lifted to some extent, been factored into budget equations?

Kate Forbes

That is why we originally said that we would continue the strategic framework business fund while businesses are in lockdown. Unfortunately, the consequentials that were generated last week were as a result of the UK Government’s decision to pay one grant in April, which hinders what else we can do on business support. Our approach has been to reach as many as possible of the unreached or excluded businesses by putting in place additional bespoke schemes. We had about 30, which it seems was criticised as being too many, followed by requests for more. We take all those factors into account. We know that some businesses will be closed for longer. We want to ensure that the funding is available for as long as it is needed, but the consequential funding that has been generated by the scheme south of the border is lower than I anticipated.

Fulton MacGregor

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That was very helpful.

The Convener

We will go to Alexander Burnett. I am sorry. I have just seen that Daniel Johnson has put an R in the chat box; forgive me. Is it a supplementary?

Daniel Johnson

Yes, it is. Thank you for taking it. Fulton MacGregor highlights an important point about different sectors. I remind the committee of my entry in the register of interests. I am a director of a company with a retail interest, albeit that it is remote.

Given what we are now discovering about the virus—the new variants and the fact that we might end up in a situation in which booster vaccinations will be required in order to provide cover—social distancing looks likely to be with us for some time. That might mean for some sectors not just that they will come out of lockdown later, but that they might not be feasible at all while the virus is endemic within the community. Is the Government looking at the potential impact of that and identifying particular sectors, and will it come forward with the insights that that work provides and the consequent financial requirements?

Kate Forbes

That is a good question. There has been an issue from the beginning in that some sectors have been harder hit, including by the costs of ensuring that their business premises can manage social distancing. I am mindful that some businesses will face an impact on their trade for longer than others will. That is why my position has been to keep grants going for as long as possible—in particular, the lag, or transition, grants that I mentioned, through which a business could receive funding for up to four weeks after it is allowed to reopen. That was to recognise the fact that, even when a business is allowed to reopen, there might be additional costs associated with social distancing, on-going costs associated with its not being able to get as much trade because space is constrained, or on-going confidence issues among consumers about returning. That was the purpose of those lag, or transition, payments.

On what we do to review the situation, we have regular meetings with business organisations; the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Scottish Tourism Alliance are two obvious examples. They meet officials and ministers weekly or more regularly, so that there is understanding, and they have been active in informing the strategic framework in relation to how we reopen, because how we do that will have an impact on the funding that is required.

I come back to the point that I know that the grants that are provided today do not go anywhere near compensating lost income. That has been the position from the very beginning. However, there are some businesses that we continue to provide funding to and we top up their funds, and there are other businesses that have not had anything. There is a constant tension between trying to help those that have had nothing, and topping up the funds that have already gone out but do not go anywhere near compensating for lost income. Currently, we have a real challenge in knowing whether the priority should be to provide on-going funds or one big restart grant. We are working with business organisations to understand what their preference would be.

The Convener

I know that Alexander Burnett has been waiting some time to ask his questions, which I made even longer by allowing Daniel Johnson to come in. I am sorry about that—I hope that you will forgive me.

Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)

That is absolutely fine, convener.

My question follows on from the topic that Fulton MacGregor was asking about and what the cabinet secretary said about trying to support businesses that you have been unable to give anything to so far.

I have constituents who are still in serious trouble. Outside caterers are receiving nothing, despite being ratepayers with a trading history. They are being passed from pillar to post, with the councils saying that it is up to the Government, and the Government—including you, cabinet secretary, in previous responses to me—saying that it is up to the councils.

Bus operators are being treated differently across councils. They are able only to rely on John Swinney saying that there is an expectation of fair treatment. Similarly, garden centres in some council areas are having to raise appeals in order to get similar treatment to that which is provided to garden centres in other council areas. What support can you offer businesses that are still falling through the cracks and those that are suffering from a postcode lottery in respect of criteria, which are ultimately approved by your Government?

Kate Forbes

As I said, we have tried to put in place on-going blanket support through the strategic framework business fund, which provides £2,000 every four weeks. Do I think that that comes anywhere near compensating lost income? No, I do not, but the scheme is in line with what happens in the rest of the UK—or, at least, in England.

Over and above that, recognising that specific sectors have specific costs associated with them, we put in place—despite criticism from the Conservatives—up to 30 bespoke funds, which dealt with the particular issues that were faced by the hospitality industry, some wholesalers in the supply chain and others. All those funds have opened. Some are distributing funding; others have closed, having distributed the funding.

There is still a third category of business that has not received much, or has received only furlough funding or access to the self-employed income support scheme. That is why we have put in place the discretionary fund, which we have increased from £30 million to £120 million.

On guidance to local authorities, we want them to use the funding for businesses that have not had help yet, and it is up to local authorities to decide what the quantum is. I am pretty sure that, the last time I checked, the Conservatives were in power in Aberdeenshire Council, so I hope that Alexander Burnett has also made representations to it about the quantum of funding, and the criteria that are associated with it, to support his constituents.

Alexander Burnett

I went to Aberdeenshire Council in the first place about the discretionary fund. The council told me that it is not at its discretion to offer the funds to outside caterers and that that is a matter for the Government. I then wrote to you and you said that it is a matter for Aberdeenshire Council. In such circumstances, who should I approach on behalf of my constituents, and where will they get support?

Kate Forbes

You are right to approach both of us. I am open to considering whether we need to top up the discretionary fund. However, the discretionary fund is the vehicle for helping all the businesses that are in need.

I whole-heartedly endorse Highland Council’s approach. I do not always, or necessarily ever, praise Highland Council, but on this occasion I think that it has done a really good job. Essentially, its criterion is that a business that has not had funding from elsewhere and has had a 50 per cent reduction in trade will be provided with support, irrespective of the sector that it is in. There are a few exceptions, including businesses that are already getting funding through bespoke schemes.

To my mind, that seems to be a very logical way of doing it. Highland Council has even said that it is looking at an additional top-up for businesses that receive the initial £2,000 grant. Some councils are doing a great job, and I am happy to send to the member more details about what Highland Council has done , if that would be helpful in his discussions with Aberdeenshire Council.

Alexander Burnett

My final point is not about the top-up, but about how criteria are being applied. I do not expect the cabinet secretary to be able to answer on a specific case but, if I write to her after the meeting, perhaps she will respond, having been able to look at the detail of the problem that we are facing, wherein there is a difference of views on the criteria for qualification between Aberdeenshire Council and her.

Kate Forbes

I am happy to look into that.

The Convener

As members will have heard at the beginning of the discussion, manuscript amendments have been lodged to reflect corrections to administrative errors in figures in the amendments that were lodged for stage 2. Under standing orders, it is for me to determine whether to allow those amendments to be moved. I confirm that I will allow them.

A revised marshalled list has been circulated to the committee—at 10.36, I think—by Mhairi Gavin. Before we move to the formal stage 2 process, I will suspend the meeting for a little while, but before that I ask Dougie McLaren, who is the deputy director of public spending, to provide us with information on the corrections.

Dougie McLaren

Just before the weekend, we circulated to the committee some figures on a spreadsheet, which members might have in front of them. The spreadsheet itemised all the individual components of proposed spending to which there were amendments in the list that was lodged on Friday. There were 13 amendments, 11 of which were for changes to portfolio totals—10 portfolio totals and a separate one for National Records of Scotland. There were two totalling amendments—one for budget use of resources and one for cash authorisation.

Since that lodging on Friday, we have very lately discovered an error in our figures, which has flowed through to three of the amendments. I will quickly explain that error, which relates to the communities and local government portfolio. We had left in a figure for non-domestic rates of £541 million, which relates to the extension of reliefs for the full year 2021-22 for retail, hospitality and leisure, aviation and independent schools. However, of course that should not have changed the overall spending allocation in the bill because, as members will know from previous times when there have been budget act revisions for non-domestic rates, the revenues are reduced and the distributable amount to local government is thereby reduced. That will be reflected in the forthcoming local government finance order. The general revenue grant is increased to offset that; the £541 million increase to the general revenue grant is offset by the £541 million reduction in receipts, which flows through to the distributable amount, so there should, of course, be no net change to the budget bill.

We therefore requested manuscript amendments, which have come through this morning. There is a replacement amendment to the communities and local government portfolio with the right figure—amendment 14 replaces amendment 2. There is a replacement amendment—amendment 15 replaces amendment 12—for the total budget use of resources in schedule 1. Lastly, amendment 16 for the total cash authorisation replaces amendment 13, which was lodged on Friday.

In summary, our proposal is not to move amendments 2, 12 and 13 and instead to move amendments 14, 15 and 16.

The Convener

If any member has questions that they want to ask Dougie McLaren before I suspend the meeting, they should type R in the chat bar, as normal. I do not see any Rs in the chat bar.

I will suspend the meeting for around 15 minutes, to make sure that everyone is aware of what is going on before we move to formal proceedings at stage 2. I will indicate in the chat bar when we are ready to restart. Obviously, I need a new script. Thank you, colleagues.

11:30 Meeting suspended.  

11:45 On resuming—  

The Convener

Item 2 is formal stage 2 consideration of the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill. I remind members that they can request to speak by typing R in the BlueJeans chat function once I call the group, but please only speak when I call your name. As members will be aware, manuscript amendments have been lodged for consideration at stage 2, and members should now have the revised marshalled list.

Section 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1—The Scottish Administration

The Convener

Amendment 1, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, is grouped with amendments 2 to 16. I draw members’ attention to the notes on the grouping in regard to direct alternatives. Direct alternatives are two or more amendments seeking to replace the same text in a bill with alternative approaches.

Kate Forbes

All 13 amendments reflect the additional funding that has been notified to us by the UK Government since the bill’s introduction.

Amendment 1 increases the health and sport authorisation by £211 million of resource. That comprises £120 million for mental health, £60 million for NHS recovery and £31 million for further Covid pressures.

Amendment 2 will not be moved, and I thank the convener for his understanding in that regard.

Amendment 3 increases the education and skills authorisation by £60 million of resource for education recovery. Amendment 4 increases the justice authorisation by £1 million for legal aid traineeships. Amendment 5 increases the transport, infrastructure and connectivity authorisation by £25 million of resource for additional transport network costs. Amendment 6 increases the environment, climate change and land reform authorisation by £2.05 million of resource for income shortfall at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh and in non-governmental organisations. Amendment 7 increases the rural economy and tourism authorisation by £10 million of capital grant for rural tourism infrastructure.

Amendment 8 increases the economy, fair work and culture authorisation by £481.5 million, which is made up of £460 million for strategic framework business support and £21.5 million of FTs for Scottish Enterprise. Amendment 9 increases the social security and older people authorisation by £4.6 million to expand the self-isolation support grant. Amendment 10 increases the constitution, Europe and external affairs authorisation by £2.6 million of resource for Covid resilience and recovery support for the armed forces community sector. Amendment 11 is for National Records of Scotland, with £1.1 million of resource for income shortfall.

Amendments 12 and 11 will not be moved.

Amendment 14 increases the communities and local government authorisation by £307 million of funding, which is made up of £100 million of resource, £187 million of capital grant and £20 million of FTs. I know that time is marching on, but I will go into the detail of that. That funding includes £100 million of resource for anti-poverty measures, £100 million of capital grant for housing, £20 million of FTs for housing, £45 million of capital grant for fuel poverty and energy efficiency, £30 million of capital grant for the town centre fund and £12 million of capital grant for the local bridge and maintenance fund.

Amendment 15 increases the overall total amount of resources in schedule 1 by £1.1 billion, which comprises £866 million of resource, £197 million of capital grant and £40 million of FTs.

Amendment 16 increases the total cash authorisation for the Scottish Government by £1,105,250,000.

Convener, apparently I said that I will not be moving amendment 11. That was a slip; I meant to say that I will not be moving amendments 12 and 13.

I hope that that is sufficient information.

I move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2, 14 and 3 to 11 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 12, in the name of the cabinet secretary, has already been debated with amendment 1. I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 12.

Kate Forbes

Not moved.

The Convener

Sorry—you are right; I should not have asked you to move that.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Amendment 15 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

The Convener

My apologies—I see that Ms Forbes has put an R in the chat bar.

Kate Forbes

Convener, we had a discussion about amendment 12 not being moved. The same applies to amendment 2, which I should not have moved.

The Convener

Yes—thank you. One of the committee’s clerks has also raised that in the chat bar. Please forgive me; I am just going by the script that I have in front of me.

Section 4—Overall cash authorisations

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 16 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 11 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

I am glad to say that that ends our consideration of the bill at stage 2. I thank colleagues for their patience with the glitches that went on in the middle of that. I also thank the cabinet secretary for being with us.

Meeting closed at 11:55.  

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have with them the bill as amended, the marshalled list and the grouping of amendments. If there is a division this afternoon, I will suspend proceedings for five minutes to call members to the chamber and allow all members to access the voting app. I encourage any member who wishes to speak on any of the amendments to press their request-to-speak button as soon as I call the first group.

Section 4—Overall cash authorisations

The Presiding Officer

All the amendments are in one group, on Scottish Administration: allocation of resources. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 to 7. I call Kate Forbes to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance (Kate Forbes)

I am pleased to advise that all seven amendments that I am moving today relate to a successful, cross-party approach that reflects agreement with both the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Amendment 1 increases the overall cash authorisation for the Scottish Administration by £142 million, which reflects the respective portfolio amendments in this group.

Amendment 2 increases the education and skills authorisation by £69.75 million of resource, which comprises £49.75 million for the phased roll-out of free school meals and £20 million for a pupil equity fund premium for next year.

Amendment 3 increases the transport infrastructure and connectivity authorisation by £42.25 million—£17.25 million of resource for additional funding to extend the concessionary fares scheme beyond the under-19s to the under-22s, and £25 million of capital, which comprises £15 million for active travel and £10 million for energy efficiency.

Amendment 4 increases the environment, climate change and land reform authorisation by £10 million of capital for a nature restoration fund.

Amendment 5 increases the rural economy and tourism authorisation by £5 million of capital for agri-environment support.

Amendment 6 increases the economy, fair work and culture authorisation by £15 million for skills and training specifically in the north-east.

17:30  

Amendment 7 increases the overall total amount of resources for the Scottish Administration by £142 million. That includes £102 million of resource and £40 million of capital. Again, that reflects the respective portfolio amendments in this group.

I move amendment 1.

The Presiding Officer

I do not believe that any other member wishes to speak on the amendments; I think that members are saving their comments for the debate.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1—The Scottish Administration

Amendments 2 to 7 moved—[Kate Forbes]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

As members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill does no such thing, so it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button. I call Kate Forbes to speak to and move motion S5M-24318.

17:31  

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance (Kate Forbes)

It is essential that we come together as a Parliament today to agree next year’s budget and deliver the certainty and stability that Scotland and its people, businesses and communities deserve. Throughout this budget process, I have worked with all parties in the chamber to build consensus and to deliver a budget that supports Scotland’s recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

I thank the Finance and Constitution Committee for its stage 1 report on the budget, which I responded to on 2 March. In particular, I recognise the outstanding contribution of Bruce Crawford, as both a committee convener and a member of this Parliament. I am sure that all members across the chamber will join me today to offer him our grateful thanks for all his service to this Parliament and our best wishes for the future. [Applause.]

The committee’s report recognises that the budget has been published in a period of continued economic and fiscal uncertainty. In a year like no other, the passage of the budget bill will have a profound effect on our economy and public services. Since I introduced the budget bill on 28 January, I have engaged with members openly and transparently on the funding that is available and the budget challenges that we face. I thank all parties for their constructive contributions to those discussions. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has reached agreements with the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, which will secure the passage of this vital budget.

In addition to delivering on the spending measures that I have previously outlined to Parliament, as part of the agreement with the Scottish Greens, next year’s budget will deliver an additional £49.7 million for the phased roll-out of free school meals. That includes, from July 2021, the provision of free school meal holiday support to all children and young people who are currently eligible for free school meals on the basis of low income and, by August 2022, the universal provision of free school meals for all children in primary schools.

Further recognition of the remarkable contribution of public sector workers during the pandemic has also been agreed, with revisions to the 2021-22 public sector pay policy. That will increase the cash underpin from £750 to £800 for those earning up to £25,000, matching the cash cap for high earners. For those who earn more than £25,000 and up to £40,000, the pay rise will increase from 1 to 2 per cent.

I am also committing to fund a greater extension to the concessionary travel scheme, ensuring free travel for those aged up to 21, which goes beyond the previous plan to extend the scheme to the under 19s. It will include 21-year-olds and will cost an additional £17 million next year. We will work to deliver that as quickly as we can in the coming months, subject to the necessary legislative and operational processes, the continued impact of Covid and engagement with key delivery partners.

To further help lower-income households, we will make a targeted pandemic support payment of £130 to households that are in receipt of council tax reduction, and two £100 payments to families with children who qualify for free school meals. That means that low-income families receiving reduced council tax bills and qualifying for free school meals will receive support payments worth £330.

As part of my agreement with the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I have agreed that the Scottish Government will further support education recovery efforts for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds with a £20 million pupil equity fund premium next year.

In recognition of the twin impacts of the pandemic and the downturn in the oil and gas sector, I will provide £15 million of financial support for retraining and reskilling to support the economic recovery in the north-east of Scotland, based on the principles of a just transition.

I will provide certainty to local government for next year’s budget by baselining the £90 million that was provided this year to support a national council tax freeze. That is in addition to the earlier commitments that I made to the Lib Dems to provide an additional £120 million for mental health services and £60 million in education recovery next year.

In the light of calls for a replacement for the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh, we have asked NHS Lothian to carry out a review of its eye care services and to reconsider how they should be delivered. I commit to working with the board to implement its recommendations and to protect specialised eye services for the city and the wider region.

Sarah Boyack (Lothian) (Lab)

Having had several cross-party briefings, we all understand that the issue is that the Scottish Government withdrew funding of £45 million for the building. Is the Scottish Government making a commitment to reinstate capital funding for a new eye pavilion in Edinburgh?

Kate Forbes

I have just said that we have asked NHS Lothian to carry out a review and that we will work with the board to implement its recommendations. The process is appropriate and, from a funding perspective, I have committed to protect specialised eye services. I will not pre-empt the outcome of the review or the recommendations.

Understandably, I have focused today on the efforts that I have made to secure the passage of the budget bill. The changes are significant and they will help to secure our recovery from Covid-19. They build on the firm foundations of a budget that already delivers a £11.6 billion settlement for local government, which is fair and affordable. The settlement will allow councils to freeze council tax next year, while still providing funding for vital day-to-day services.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The cabinet secretary mentioned local government. This afternoon, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said that the cost of meeting the Scottish Government’s pay policy for local government workers will be £300 million. What additional resource has the cabinet secretary found to support local councils, which are now facing that challenge?

Kate Forbes

Murdo Fraser knows that local councils are the employers and that it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to interfere in negotiations between trade unions, the workforce and local government.

I have just outlined the settlement that we have provided to local government, which is a greater than 3 per cent increase in the core settlement, alongside additional funding to help with Covid pressures—£275 million was announced on 16 February, and there is an additional £259 million for next year.

We will keep all that under review. I have regularly said—I will say it again—that I do not necessarily think that this is the final budget update for next year; there will probably be more updates in the light of the uncertainties that we are living through. Therefore, we will revisit some elements over the coming months.

The budget allows for record funding of £16 billion for our national health service, which is an increase of more than £800 million to the core budget. That funding will support recovery and includes an investment in excess of £1.2 billion in mental health, underpinning our continued approach to improving mental health services.

The budget allows for 100 per cent rates relief for the retail, hospitality, leisure, aviation and newspaper industries for the whole of next year, which has been widely called for and is vital to those sectors. All parties in the chamber agreed to implement that, yet the same policy is not being implemented south of the border.

Our budget will deliver the lowest poundage rate available anywhere in the United Kingdom—saving ratepayers more than £120 million compared with previously published plans. We have a tax policy that delivers on our commitment to a fair and progressive tax system. We have ambitious use of our new welfare powers so that we can help to tackle child poverty—including significant investment in our game-changing Scottish child payment. We have almost £1.9 billion for the Scottish Funding Council, in order to fund our university and college sector. There is £1.3 billion for the Scottish Police Authority, including money for the elimination of the deficit in the police budget. There is an investment of more than £1.6 billion across bus and rail services, ensuring that we keep public transport open and supporting our recovery. There is £1.1 billion of total investment in employability and skills support.

On a final point of substance, I acknowledge the Labour Party’s focus on pay for social care workers during our budget discussions. Of course, our public pay policy continues our action to address low pay, with a further cash underpinning and continuing adherence to the increased real living wage. Although that policy is not directly applicable to the social care workforce, it nonetheless sets a benchmark. I am clear that social care workers should have fair levels of pay for all that they do, and am equally clear that I will promise only what can be afforded.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Kate Forbes

Yes, I will take an intervention if I have time.

Daniel Johnson

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that a 2 per cent rise for a care worker represents only 20p per hour? Does she really think that that is adequate compensation for the work that they have been doing throughout the pandemic?

Kate Forbes

I do not think that Daniel Johnson’s characterisation captures the facts. I will come on to those now.

I have been clear that social care workers should have fair levels of pay. With the limited and non-recurring funding that has flowed from the UK budget, I have not been able to accede to Labour’s position of an initial £12 per hour leading to £15 per hour. An immediate increase to £12 per hour would provide a 26 per cent uplift in pay from the 2021-22 real living wage of £9.50 per hour, at an estimated cost of around £470 million. Moving to £15 per hour would equate to an increase of 58 per cent and an annual salary of more than £29,000, and would cost more than £2 billion if the impact on the wider agenda for change workforce was taken into account.

However, I believe in the importance of recognising the efforts of our social care workers. We have recognised those efforts already with a £500 thank you, and have promised to pay the real living wage. That does not, however, mean that that is my final word on the matter.

My position is that we will respect the process and the outcome of collective bargaining. We will look to build on the progress that has been made by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport in recent months. We will duly consider the work of the fair work in social care implementation group, which is set to report in May with recommendations on key areas for the social care workforce, including pay and terms and conditions. Finally, I will be very open to discussions on social care pay with any and all interested voices—talking of which, I will take an intervention from Jackie Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

If the group recommends in May that there should be a substantial pay increase, from where is the cabinet secretary going to get the recurring funding that she says is not available right now?

Kate Forbes

That is a challenge with which I have to contend. I have been open and transparent with all parties when it comes to the funding that is available. There has been much talk about additional funding for the Scottish Government, but that is non-recurring Covid consequential funding, which may not be guaranteed in future years. I have committed here and now to implementing the outcome of collective bargaining, and it will be one of my headaches to figure out how such things are funded. That is the nature of being in government: we have to ensure that what we commit to is affordable.

The ground that I have covered demonstrates how the budget provides stability and certainty for taxpayers and delivers for our economy. These times are truly unprecedented and require an unprecedented response. The budget delivers that. With cross-party support for it tonight, its passage will help to put Scotland on the road to recover.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) (No. 5) Bill be passed.

17:44  

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I start by thanking the Cabinet Secretary for Finance for the constructive engagement that we have had throughout the budget process. Although we were not in the end able to reach agreement, I put on record my thanks to her for her willingness to discuss Scottish Conservatives’ very reasonable budget asks—even though I regret that, in the end, she was not able to meet them.

As the deputy convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, I join the finance secretary in paying tribute to my friend Bruce Crawford, who I think is making his final speech in the chamber this afternoon. Bruce has served as convener of the committee for the past five years and has led the committee, as we would expect, with the grace and wisdom that reflect his service to the Parliament over many years. I am sure that all members wish him a very happy retirement in a few weeks’ time.

When we had the stage 1 debate on the budget some weeks ago, I reminded members that this budget would be the largest in the history of devolution. At that point, in revenue terms it was up 11 per cent on the budget for the previous year, and it gave the finance secretary an unprecedented level of resource to allocate. Of course, that is down to the broad shoulders of the British Government, which is supporting individuals, businesses and public services in Scotland at these times of unprecedented difficulty.

Since that debate, even more money has been forthcoming. Following the announcements in the UK budget just last week, an extra £1.1 billion is coming to the Scottish Government from the British Treasury. We know that, when the finance secretary did her original budget calculations, she assumed a £500 million uplift, so the UK budget has left her with even more cash than she anticipated.

That money is needed. It is needed to support people who are suffering from the consequences of Covid. It is needed to support the many businesses throughout the country that are struggling to survive, thanks to the Covid restrictions. In every previous debate on finance in the chamber, I have raised the need to support businesses that are struggling. I make no apology for doing so again, because we continue to hear daily from people who are falling through the net of business support. We need a renewed focus on providing funding, particularly for the category of businesses that are not legally obliged to close but which have experienced a substantial fall in trade as a result of restrictions elsewhere in the economy.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Does Mr Fraser accept that his colleagues announcing the budget on 3 March was not exactly helpful and made it very difficult for the Government to plan ahead?

Murdo Fraser

Unlike Mr Mason, I have confidence in the finance secretary’s ability to cope with late announcements on money. As we see from the budget that has been put together and we are debating today, the late announcements do not seem to have been a handicap. Mr Mason might not have noticed that we have had a global pandemic, which has had an impact on the ability of Governments everywhere in the world to plan their finances.

Our major ask in the budget was more funding for local government. According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the core funding increase that is being delivered this year amounts to just 0.9 per cent and leaves a gap of around £350 million, which councils need to stand still—that would not provide additional services; it would simply preserve current services.

The 0.9 per cent increase goes only halfway towards funding the Scottish Government’s previous pay policy of a 1 per cent increase for people who earn up to £80,000, but we now know that, as a result of the deals that the finance secretary has done, the Government’s public pay policy has changed. The policy is now to deliver a 2 per cent increase for those who earn up to £40,000. No thought seems to have been given to the impact that that will have on council budgets. If councils are to match that pay policy for local government workers, as local government workers will expect them to do, they will wonder where the money will come from. COSLA estimates that the change in pay policy will cost councils £300 million in the coming year. However, in the revised budget that has been announced this afternoon, the finance secretary has not produced an extra penny to support local government.

Once again, councils are the whipping boy of a Scottish National Party budget. While the Scottish Government budget increases by an unprecedented amount, councils are seeing their resources squeezed and will have to cut local services as a result. The Scottish Conservatives want fair funding for councils, and this budget does not deliver that.

We should perhaps not be surprised that the Greens are backing a budget that damages councils, because they have form for that. Indeed, we should not be surprised that the Greens are backing an SNP budget, because, as surely as night follows day, the Greens go the SNP way. However, I am disappointed in the Liberal Democrats. I thought that they would have more sense than to vote for an SNP budget that is damaging councils.

Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser

I look forward to Willie Rennie explaining to the Conservative voters of North East Fife why he is voting for an SNP budget that will damage local services. I will give way to him.

Willie Rennie

Would Murdo Fraser agree that the difference between him and me is that, when the finance secretary comes forward with policies that we argued for, we feel duty bound to back those proposals, but when she backs proposals that he came forward with, such as 100 per cent business rates relief, he does not vote for them? Is he not being a little bit disingenuous?

Murdo Fraser

I look forward to Mr Rennie deploying that argument on the doorsteps in North East Fife to all my Conservative friends. We will see how he gets on in the next few weeks.

It was good to see some progress being made on the introduction of free school meals for all primary pupils, although it is being done over two years when it should have been introduced over one. Again, that was a key budget ask of ours that was not delivered.

Yesterday, at the Finance and Constitution Committee, I raised the issue of land and buildings transaction tax. The finance secretary is insisting that the threshold for LBTT payments, which was temporarily raised to £250,000, must return to £145,000 next month, despite the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has extended an uplift for the equivalent tax in England, as, indeed, has the Government in Wales, and that the block grant adjustment would provide additional resources to extend that tax cut if she wanted to do so. That means that, from April, house purchasers in Scotland will be hit with a higher tax bill than those elsewhere.

Yet, as we know, revenue from LBTT in the period from September amounted to £39 million more than was generated in the same period last year. That means that reducing the tax burden delivered a higher revenue. That is perhaps an illustration of the Laffer curve that Mr McKee is always so glad for me to explain to him. I hope even now that the finance secretary can think again about that issue, because she might find that she is depriving herself of tax revenue and that, by extending the increase in the threshold, she might take in more tax, as we have demonstrated over the past few months.

The Minister for Trade, Innovation and Public Finance (Ivan McKee)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser

No—I am in my last minute.

For the reasons that I have outlined, this is not a budget that we can support. Despite having at its disposal unprecedented resources coming from the British Government, the SNP has not delivered on key policies to improve Scotland for all its residents and, in particular, the budget will once again damage local services, because councils will be struggling to balance their budgets while the Scottish Government sits on piles of cash. For all of those reasons, we will oppose the budget at decision time tonight.

17:53  

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

I begin by adding my tribute to Bruce Crawford. I have to admit that my tenure and his on the Finance and Constitution Committee will overlap only briefly. Nonetheless, I recognise the contribution that he has made to Parliament. He is a parliamentarian who has widespread admiration across this chamber, so I wish him well with his retirement.

We must ensure that we recover and rebuild from this pandemic. That is the imperative for this budget and it is how it should be judged. The budget lines that it prioritises will determine whether we have the capacity to undo the damage that has been done. Additional funds being spent on the right things will ensure that we build resilience as we learn to cope with the virus. Spending funds on the wrong things will mean that we will continue to struggle and will fail to cope with the virus as it continues to linger.

This budget and the coming parliamentary session must be focused on recovery from a virus that has shattered our public services, communities and economy. However, as the emergence of new variants makes clear, this virus is persistent. It will not end with the vaccination programme. The vaccination programme will merely stabilise the situation and give us the ability to cope with the virus. Therefore, in that context, we must focus not only on recovery but on building resilience.

On-going infection control and social distancing will have a profound effect on our ability to deliver healthcare and education, disrupting businesses that rely on contact with customers and continuing to place a strain on social interactions. Therefore, we need strategic measures and bold steps to build and secure that recovery and resilience. We need to move beyond the week-to-week measures that are necessitated by crisis and learn to cope.

On the Labour benches, we are clear that improving the pay of social care workers would have been such a move. Currently, the median pay for social care workers across the UK is around £10 an hour. The critical and vital work that they do, caring for the most vulnerable in our society, has been undervalued and underpaid for far too long. The pandemic has simply underlined and magnified that. That is why Labour has made the call for social care workers to gain an immediate increase of £12 an hour, with a plan to implement £15 an hour, to recognise their work and to build a care system that is skilled, effective and resilient.

I am only a week into my post as finance spokesperson for Scottish Labour, so I thank the cabinet secretary for already having a number of meetings with me in the previous days.

Our priority going into the budget was to correct a key structural failing that has been exposed by the pandemic: the inadequate pay of social care workers. I know that the cabinet secretary agrees with that sentiment and agrees that those workers have been at the forefront of the response, and I know that she accepts that good social care is preventative spend that can save money and remove pressure on our health service, because ensuring that vulnerable people are healthy at home is better for everyone than fighting to treat them and get them well again in hospital. She knows those things, but the Government has made different choices.

Make no mistake: increasing pay for social care workers would be a financial challenge. I accept that, but the cabinet secretary has the financial headroom to deliver it. As confirmed at the Finance and Constitution Committee yesterday, the budget has an additional £1.3 billion of recurring funds in it, but other things have seemingly been prioritised. The recent UK budget delivered another £1.2 billion, albeit in non-recurring funds, but that has been allocated to other things, and more than £1 billion in Covid money carried over from the previous financial year has been prioritised for other issues.

The direct cost of increasing pay for social care workers across the public, voluntary and private sectors would be around £480 million, which is a large sum, but in the context of those additional funds, realistic and deliverable. Four hundred and eighty million pounds would transform the pay of such critical workers in such a critical service. Compare £480 million to the £100 million that the deal with the Green Party secured, which amounts to nearly 1 per cent above inflation and does not necessarily carry through to NHS or local authority workers. I say bluntly that social care workers deserve more than the 20p per hour that this budget seems to imply they are worth.

There are of course elements of the budget that I commend. I welcome the commitment of £45 million to replace the eye pavilion in Edinburgh, but we need to see the detail and I am worried by the caveated words from the cabinet secretary in response to Sarah Boyack. Waiting times were concerning before Covid and are now at very serious levels. The budget needs to step up so that we no longer need to make the choice between treating the virus and treating cancer. Money to reduce class sizes and extend free school meals is welcome, but £60 million against the £1 billion that is spent every year on schools will struggle to counteract the gaps in our children’s knowledge, and we are yet to see the progress on free school meals that was promised by previous budgets, before we rush to welcome the latest announcement.

Local government has carried the burden of much of the economic response to Covid but, despite the sums promised in this budget, there remains a Covid funding gap that is estimated to be £518 million on top of the real-terms cuts that local government has experienced since 2013 of £937 million.

Our economy is shattered. The simple fact is that many consumer-facing businesses will struggle to survive; despite pledges, guidance remains unclear. Funds remain slow in being delivered to the businesses that need them. I have heard first hand from bed and breakfast owners in my constituency that they have had to cash in their pensions because their applications to the discretionary fund have been declined. Despite Scottish Government promises, many funds remain underclaimed. The budget should have been about spending better as well as spending more.

Those are the choices that have been made by the Government and those priorities are supported by the Greens and Liberal Democrats. Those concessions improve the budget, which is why we voted for those amendments, but I fear that they are not the bold strategic steps that are needed to transform social care or deliver the recovery and resilience that is required. For those reasons, Scottish Labour cannot support the budget at decision time. I do not state that with pleasure or relish.

The pandemic means that no one wants the squabbling over the budget that old politics would expect, but I also strongly feel that challenging times require Opposition parties to challenge the Government. The budget will undoubtedly pass, but I ask those who support it whether the budget meets the challenge of building recovery and resilience.

I sincerely hope that the budget does not hold back money for gimmicks or flourishes for the SNP in the coming election. If it does, we will look at how what is being spent measures up to what could have been paid for—the additional pay for social care workers, which they deserve. Care workers will certainly compare their pay packets with the budget to see whether their true worth is being valued.

18:00  

Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

Daniel Johnson is right that no one wants to see squabbling during a global pandemic. Our quiet work has secured a reprioritisation of £300 million towards mental health support, the education bounce-back plan, the economy and jobs, support for the north-east on the just transition, and the environment.

The public expect us to work together because these are exceptional times. We are in the middle of a global pandemic in which thousands of people have lost their lives, thousands more have lost their jobs and people live with restrictions every day. We need to put recovery first and have a needle-sharp focus on it, which we have sought to do. We have done that over the past year by working with the Government whenever we could. Members know me—I am Mr Consensual. The only thing that makes me have doubts is Jackie Baillie silently giving me the scolding look across the chamber that I know many others have experienced recently, too.

We have tried to make a difference in the budget. It is not perfect, but we are pleased and proud that we have increased the mental health budget by £120 million to £1.2 billion. We got steps in the right direction on the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion, which we will watch closely. There is £60 million for the bounce-back plan in education, plus £20 million for the pupil equity fund premium. There is £5 million for agri-environment schemes. We were pleased that the finance secretary accepted the Conservatives’ proposal on 100 per cent rates relief for businesses, which is a step in the right direction. The support for bed and breakfasts and self-catering accommodation is another step in the right direction. For councils, there is £90 million next year to protect services in future years and avoid massive council tax increases.

All those things are good. I am particularly pleased about the support fund for skills and retraining in the north-east, which I might call the Mike Rumbles fund. That will help with the just transition from oil and gas and represents another important set of proposals. We argued for all those things.

Another thing that I agree with Daniel Johnson on is social care workers’ pay. We need to make a substantial change; we cannot accept simply superficial changes to change the name to national care service and expect everything to be resolved. We need to pay such workers more.

The past year has shown that the social care sector is not robust and strong enough. The sector’s high staff turnover alone should tell us that we need substantial changes. We must all work together to re-engineer the budget substantially so that we can pay those people more. They have sacrificed their lives in the past year. We must make a difference in the next parliamentary session to get a decent rate of pay for them.

I thank the finance secretary for her co-operative approach. She is no-nonsense—she likes to be straight, honest and up front on her proposals, and I appreciated her approach. As a result, we have a better budget. We have avoided the squabbling, got the budget going through and put money in people’s pockets when they need it. The last thing that people wanted from the Parliament was for us to continue to argue while people struggle in their daily lives.

There is £300 million extra for priorities that Liberal Democrats set out. We can support that.

18:04  

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)

I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for her engagement in the budget process. I welcome Daniel Johnson to his portfolio; I think that this is his first finance debate in the role.

Oh, go on—here is one last tribute to Bruce Crawford, our outgoing Finance and Constitution Committee convener. I think that we will all miss him—he has managed to achieve a collegiate atmosphere on the committee, despite my occasional efforts to amend all those committee reports.

My favourite memory will be the look of joy on his face when I shared with him a bottle of Glasgow Mega Death hot sauce. If his speech in this debate is to be his final speech, I ask him to use the opportunity to spice up the debate a bit—don’t hold back, convener.

The Scottish Greens went into the budget process wanting to put forward three key priorities. First, we wanted it to be recognised that the Scottish Government’s pay policy, as published, needed to go further. Secondly, we wanted to make sure that the economic impact on some of the most vulnerable households in Scotland was recognised and to support household incomes for those people. Thirdly, we wanted to sow the seeds for a green recovery.

I think that we have managed to achieve a significant package on each of those key priorities. In relation to a green recovery, investment is increasing in active travel, energy efficiency, agri-environment schemes and more, but the policy also connects with policies such as the expansion of free bus travel, which will be of immediate benefit to those who gain access to it. Not just young people aged 19 and under but young people aged 21 and under will get that practical and financial benefit. As we continue to expand that policy, it will help to normalise public transport use in Scotland and to continue the shift away from car use and to public transport that we need to see.

On free school meals, we never thought that the Scottish Government needed to wait until the next election to make promises, even though it is in only a couple of months’ time, and then leave it to the Parliament in the next session to decide what to do. We thought that action should have been taken in the current session, and I am pleased that we now have a clear timetable for rolling out free school meals on a universal basis at primary level. Greens will continue to advocate for further progress there.

The pandemic support payments to households that are in receipt of council tax reduction and families whose children currently qualify for free school meals will make a significant difference, and anti-poverty organisations have welcomed that. It is not just a case of providing universal access to those payments; it is also a case of ensuring that they are targeted at those households that need them the most. That will make a difference to those who have suffered most severely from the economic impact of the pandemic.

On public sector pay, we were very clear that we wanted a solution that would go further for people at the lowest end of the income scale. We never thought that it was justified that any high earner should get a bigger increase in their salary as a result of the pay settlement than the lowest earners. Progress has been made for the lowest earners. We wanted there to be a progressive approach throughout the income scale, and we have managed to ensure that people who earn up to £40,000 will get 2 per cent.

However, we are absolutely convinced, as others have made clear, that that needs to be a benchmark—a baseline—for the sectoral negotiations that must take place. Those who have made the case for further progress on health and social care, for example, make a very strong—indeed, an unanswerable—case, but the negotiation and the collective bargaining process need to continue. [Interruption.]

I am afraid that I do not have time; I am in my final few seconds.

We have advanced the baseline, and we will continue to make progress.

My final point is that, in the next session, we will face very deep questions, on which cross-party consensus will be required, regardless of the parliamentary arithmetic. We will have to think deeply about Scotland’s entire tax base. We will have to make decisions that will have lasting repercussions. They must be decisions that lead us towards a more equal and more sustainable society. Those are challenges that the Parliament will have to grapple with and make decisions on in the next session, and it will need to do that on the basis of some degree of consensus, regardless of the parliamentary arithmetic.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Lewis Macdonald)

We move to the open debate and a speech from Bruce Crawford. I need hardly mention that this is Mr Crawford’s final speech.

18:09  

Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)

I will begin my speech with a contribution on the budget for 2021-22. However, as this will be my final speech in a debate at Holyrood, I would also like to take some time to say a few thank yous, as well as make some remarks reflecting on my time as a member of the Parliament of Scotland.

On the budget, I congratulate Kate Forbes, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, for putting together a well-constructed budget for recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Kate Forbes entered the challenge of her post in the most difficult of circumstances, but she has acquitted herself with great aplomb and has grown into a finance secretary of very real stature.

When I compare the approach to the budget of Kate Forbes and the Scottish Government with that of the main Opposition in the shape of the Conservatives, the contrast really could not be starker. It simply beggars belief that, despite the fact that we are now only three weeks away from a new budget year, and in the midst of the greatest crisis since the second world war, the Tories cannot bring themselves to vote for a budget at this time. I believe that the Conservatives’ stance of opposition for opposition’s sake throughout the current session of Parliament because of their dislike of the SNP will come to be their electoral undoing.

In my final speech, there are some things that I must say. To be frank, I have been extremely disappointed by some of the commentary that I have seen, particularly on social media, in which MSP colleagues have made spiteful and sometimes nasty comments about fellow MSPs. Many on the receiving end have been my friends for decades, and I can tell members that I find such comments hurtful and distressing. I genuinely hoped that the pandemic would usher in a kinder and more considered type of politics. I can only hope that, after the coming election, the reset button will be pressed and a greater degree of respect will be found—much as Patrick Harvie suggested—both between MSPs and between the political parties, in order that the job of politics can be done as the citizens of Scotland expect from their elected representatives.

Some of my friends at Holyrood will be aware that I seriously considered standing down at the previous election, but my good friend John Swinney persuaded me not to do so. He is a man whom we are extremely fortunate to have as our Deputy First Minister and education secretary. On reflection, and despite the very challenging circumstances of the pandemic, I am glad that I made the decision to continue for a further parliamentary session.

Although the circumstances are certainly not ones that any of us would have chosen for their last year at Holyrood, I am pleased to have been able to utilise my experience as an elected representative of 33 years—first as a councillor and then as an MSP—to provide assistance and support to a great many individuals, businesses and organisations in the Stirling constituency who have needed my help over the past 12 months.

There are so many people that I would like to say thank you to. I will start with a huge thank you to the many wonderful constituents with whom I have been in contact over the years. I thank the amazing staff in my constituency office, who have supported me marvellously for two decades. I thank the officials and staff at Holyrood, who have always shown me the greatest respect and have provided me with support whenever it was required. I thank many MSP colleagues throughout the chamber for the comradeship that they have shown. I thank the officials and members of the Scottish Government for their commitment and effort on behalf of the people of Scotland.

In concluding my thanks, let me mention and give particular thanks to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who has been my personal friend for over 20 years. No other First Minister in history has had to endure the pressure that she has been subjected to while holding the office. Her leadership during the pandemic has been truly outstanding, and I publicly and sincerely thank her for all the sacrifices that she has made on behalf of the nation.

In reflecting on my time as an MSP, I will begin with the wonderful opening day of this Parliament, in 1999. The memory of the reconvening of Scotland’s Parliament after a period of more than 300 years is one that I will cherish for evermore. So, too, will I cherish the memory of winning the Stirling constituency, being part of the first-ever SNP Government and, as a result, being in a position to do my bit to ensure that the minority Government stayed the course and delivered for the people of Scotland.

It has been an honour and the privilege of my life to be a member of this Parliament for the Stirling constituency, as well as to serve in Government and to be the convener of a number of parliamentary committees, particularly the Finance and Constitution Committee in the current session. For me, it has always been about service, improving the lot of the people of Scotland and, ultimately, the people of this nation taking full responsibility for their own destiny.

With those comments, Presiding Officer, I sign off my final contribution to a debate at Holyrood by wishing everyone all the very best. I sincerely hope that all of you and your families have as safe and peaceful a future as is possible. [Applause.]

18:15  

Annie Wells (Glasgow) (Con)

I put on record my best wishes to Bruce Crawford for the future.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important budget debate, which, once again, takes place against the backdrop of an immensely difficult 12 months.

Although there are measures in this year’s budget that the Scottish Conservatives welcome, it represents a failed opportunity to place Scotland’s economic recovery at the forefront of our priorities. The bottom line is that, despite an unprecedented level of support from the UK Government, the budget lacks the bold action that Scotland needs if we are to emerge stronger from these severe economic headwinds, which we are not alone as a nation in facing.

The chamber will not need reminding that, as the Scottish Fiscal Commission has warned, Scotland’s economy will not return to pre-pandemic levels until 2024 at the earliest. That highlights the scale of the monumental challenge before us all. As members on the Conservative benches have already spoken to, we had some clear asks of the Government—asks that would have placed Scotland in prime position to meet that challenge head on.

From my perspective, the aspect of this year’s budget that is most disappointing is that it fails to deliver the necessary and vital support to Scotland’s cash-strapped councils, which are facing the economic brunt of the Covid-19 pandemic. With Scotland’s councils facing a combined budget shortfall of an eye-watering £511 million, worsened by consistent spending cuts to core funding by the SNP Government over several years, they deserve unprecedented financial support to respond to the pandemic. COSLA has consistently reiterated its concerns in that regard and has identified serious shortcomings in this year’s budget.

It is grossly unfair that, as the Scottish Government’s own budget is going to dramatically increase because of support from the UK Government, the core funding increase to local government will amount to less than 1 per cent. The persistent underfunding of Scotland’s local councils by this Government is simply no longer acceptable. They provide so many of the local services that Scots rely on, from the disposal of our waste to the upkeep of our leisure facilities, which could be placed at serious risk if they are not funded properly.

Murdo Fraser spoke of how Scotland’s councils have been the whipping boys of the SNP budget. If this budget is passed, it will demonstrate that they most certainly are. To right that wrong, the Scottish Conservatives have called for the introduction of a fair funding deal. That would award our local authorities with a set proportion of the Scottish Government’s budget each year, which would mirror the relationship that the Scottish Government has with the UK Government. The new framework would provide our councils with the financial certainty that they need to ensure the provision of key local services, some of which I have mentioned.

Local councils know their residents best. They can play a leading role in both rebuilding our communities and empowering them to meet the diverse range of economic challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. However, the blunt truth is that, having been short changed for years, they cannot do it on the cheap.

We, on the Conservative benches, have it made clear that we want to back Scotland’s local councils to the hilt, and we will make that argument loud and clear as we approach the elections in May. In the meantime, we cannot vote for this budget, because, among other reasons, it does not go far enough towards providing Scotland’s councils with the level of support that they deserve.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind open debate speakers that their speeches should be four minutes, please.

18:19  

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I congratulate the cabinet secretary on reaching agreement with two other parties this year.

It is good that the UK Government is continuing to borrow into 2021-22, so that both it and we can continue to deal with Covid and, I hope, help the economy to recover. I accept that it may not yet be the time to raise taxes, because we want people who have spare cash to be out there spending it as soon as possible in order to keep businesses and jobs going.

On the other hand, I do not think that the public finances can afford tax cuts. The Conservatives have suggested tax cuts—in particular, that there should be no LBTT on transactions of more than £145,000. There are a number of reasons why that is not a good idea. First, the NHS and local government need the money for public services. Secondly, the policy does not help those who are in greatest need and who do not own their own homes. Thirdly, it does not even help many ordinary folk who buy a flat or a house for less than £145,000. For example, flats in the estate where I live go for about £70,000.

I was intrigued to see that the Conservatives down south are looking at increasing corporation tax in the medium term. That is a bit of a change of tack for them, and I say that it is welcome. I hope that the Tories in this Parliament will welcome the need for increased taxation if we are to protect public services.

On the subject of taxation more generally, as the cabinet secretary pointed out in her letter of 2 March to the Finance and Constitution Committee, we are “limited” when we do not have

“full devolution of tax powers”.

Income tax, in particular, is a problem. It is still, in essence, a reserved tax, with the Scottish Government having the power only to vary rates. The UK income tax system is far too complex to start with, and it is made worse by having national insurance as a separate and highly regressive tax on top.

On the spending provisions, I very much welcome the record spending on the NHS, the focus on mental health and, of course, the increase to a 2 per cent pay rise for most public sector workers. I accept that most of us would like higher increases for many workers, but we have to live within our means.

The reality is that, even with UK borrowing, there are limits to spending. We have increased NHS spending over a number of years. If Opposition members feel that we have not given enough to local government, as Annie Wells has just said, they must think that we have given too much to the NHS. Those are the two main parts of our budget, so providing more for one almost inevitably means providing less for the other.

On capital spending, I very much welcome the continued emphasis on housing—especially on social rented and other affordable housing. In recent years—and even right now—in the Glasgow Shettleston constituency we have affordable housing going up in Dalmarnock, Bridgeton, Parkhead, Calton, Baillieston and Shettleston itself, to name but a few places. We cannot overstate how important such housing is. It means that people can have good-quality housing that they can afford, it helps people to overcome fuel poverty and, as we have seen in recent months, it gives young people the space to study effectively, even when that is being done remotely.

I am always uneasy when we talk about longer-term borrowing for revenue costs, be that by individuals or by the country. However, we should certainly be borrowing for capital expenditure, especially for housing. It is disappointing that the UK Government has cut back on our capital spending, especially financial transaction money.

Such housing investment gives our communities long-lasting assets, at the end of the day, and it creates jobs and boosts the economy along the way. It should certainly be possible for the Scottish Government to borrow prudently, as local authorities can, rather than having artificial limits placed on it by Westminster.

Overall, I am very pleased to support the budget. It has been a strange year, and it looks as though 2021-22 will not be normal either, but we can have confidence, in Scotland at least, that the public finances are in safe hands.

18:23  

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

I, too, warmly wish Bruce Crawford well for the future. I thank him for the many thoughtful contributions that I have had the privilege of listening to in my short time in Parliament.

The past year has been tough for everyone. More than 7,000 lives and tens of thousands of livelihoods have been lost. Families and friends have been separated, and the attainment gap in our schools has become a chasm. The national crisis cried out for a national recovery plan to get us through the trauma of the Covid pandemic. We needed a budget that would start to fix the foundations of the economy, protect our NHS, tackle Scotland’s plague of inequality and reward our key workers. Instead, sadly, we have a budget that has, largely, just papered over the cracks.

I know that Covid did not create the inequalities in our society, the weaknesses in our economy or the utter neglect of our social care system, but it has cruelly exposed them. More than ever, we needed a bold and ambitious budget to take Scotland forward, but we have instead a budget that barely brings us back to where we were before the coronavirus.

That is the case not least when it comes to a group of workers who have been so badly let down during the pandemic—Scotland’s social care staff. They have been let down by a lack of personal protective equipment, a lack of testing and a lack of proper guidance. That meant that Covid-positive patients were transferred into our care homes, but those workers looked after our loved ones as if they were their own—often caring for them in their final moments as Covid took its terrible toll in our care homes. They did so in return for wages that, frankly, we should be ashamed of. We were all quick to clap for those care workers during the first lockdown, but it is not our praise that they need; it is an increase in their wages.

That is why Labour did not make unreasonable demands during the budget process. We gave our backing to the calls by the GMB for £15 per hour for care staff. We did not demand that it happen overnight, but instead asked for a first step of £12 per hour in this budget. That would be entirely affordable with just a fraction of the extra funds that the Government has received since it published its draft budget.

Although we would like to have seen much more being improved in the budget, we made it clear that we would back it if the Government agreed to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work for our social carers. However, the Government has failed to provide that. The cabinet secretary said she recognises that Labour engaged in good faith to seek a better deal for our care workers. However, we want her to recognise those care workers. They were there when we needed them most, so it is a shame that the cabinet secretary is not there when they need her. Sadly, promises of jam tomorrow do not go far enough.

The budget was a chance for the Parliament to come together to unite and stand with our carers. It was a test of how serious we are about genuinely building back better. However, when it comes to social care, Parliament has failed the test.

However, Scotland’s social care workers can rest assured of one thing: Labour is on their side and will continue to stand with them until we get the better pay deal that they deserve.

In the short time that I have, I want to touch on the fact that it is important to consider the budget in the context of the previous four in this session of Parliament. If we do that, one thing that stands out is the single biggest attack on local council services in living memory. Despite having the largest budget in the history of devolution, this year’s local government budget is still 2.4 per cent lower, in real terms, than it was in 2013-14. Even before the allocation of the recent additional consequentials, the Scottish Government’s budget was 3.1 per cent higher.

Since 2013-14, local government has faced a cumulative cut of £4.3 billion, tens of thousands of council jobs have been cut and services have been axed. I have never quite worked out why the SNP has such disdain for local government.

During the past four years, our councillors have seen a determined attack on the services that the most vulnerable people rely on. For four years, councillors the length and breadth of Scotland have had to wrestle with painful cuts.

At a time when one third of Scotland's schoolchildren are leaving school without the expected literacy and numeracy levels, we have seen savage attacks on learning support staff.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can you draw your remarks to a close?

Colin Smyth

I will do, Presiding Officer.

At a time when one third of Scotland’s school children are obese, we have seen a record number of leisure centre closures.

In the next parliamentary session, we need to consider again how local government is funded and how to support properly the services that we all rely on.

18:28  

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

During the past year, public services, businesses and families have faced unprecedented challenges, so recovery has to be our core focus during the coming financial year. I am glad that that is the approach that the Scottish Government is taking with the budget, which meets the needs of the nation.

First and foremost, I welcome the fact that the health portfolio will receive additional resources, both for core health services and for suppressing the spread of Covid-19, with funding at a record £16 billion. That is an increase of more than £800 million.

After the UK Government’s insult of a public sector pay freeze, most of Scotland’s public sector will receive a pay rise of either £800 or 2 per cent. That acts as a benchmark for pay-deal negotiations between employers, trade unions and the NHS workforce. During the past year, we have all relied on our public sector workers, and they now rely on their elected representatives to pass the budget so that they can receive their well-deserved pay rise.

At the same time, many families across Scotland will benefit from a council tax freeze, thanks to £90 million that is being made available to local authorities specifically for that purpose. That includes £2.182 million for North Ayrshire Council, which covers my constituency.

Thus, local taxpayers will again have respite from increasing council taxes in 2021-22—just as they did for nine consecutive years from 2008 to 2017. It is therefore no surprise that the average band E council tax is £1,338 per year in Scotland, which is a thumping £480 less than it is in Tory England, and the gulf is set to widen further. Two thirds of English councils are imposing the maximum 4.9 per cent council tax rise, which is far in excess of inflation. That is not to mention the derisory 1 per cent pay rise that is being offered to nurses in England.

The Tories, of course, removed the need to consult on council tax rises. Until last November, any local authority in England that was planning a rise of more than 2 per cent had to hold a local referendum, but no longer. In Saturday’s The Daily Telegraph, the Local Government Association said:

“Councils face the tough choice about whether to increase bills to bring in desperately needed funding ... at a time when we are acutely aware of the significant burden that this could place on some households.”

As I have recounted in detail many times over the years in budget debates, the Tories have eviscerated English council budgets, so for the Tories in this chamber, utterly beholden to their bosses in London, to come here and pretend to be the defenders of local government in Scotland, is an insult to the intelligence of every Scottish voter. To make it the fig leaf from behind which they oppose the budget, which they would never support under any circumstances, stretches the credibility of even the most gullible. The Tories should just be honest and say, “It’s an SNP budget, so we won’t support it.”

The council tax freeze is only one part of the budget, which also introduces free school meals for all primary pupils and a £100 million programme of one-off pandemic support payments to help to relieve the significant financial stress of families across Scotland.

Housing was another Tory gripe, yet in the four years to 2020 the SNP Government built more than nine times more social rented homes per head of population in Scotland than were built in England. Under this Government, 4,340 new homes have been built in North Ayrshire, including 496 council and 1,022 housing association homes. The funding for North Ayrshire Council to build homes amounts to £67.916 million over the past five years alone.

I am delighted that ferry service resources will increase from £255.1 million to £287.6 million—an increase of almost 13 per cent. That is invaluable to my island constituents. Motorway and trunk road expenditure will rise by more than 10 per cent, from £748.9 million to £825.9 million, while rail expenditure will rise by more than 4 per cent to £1.3149 billion.

I recall 2009, when Labour set out a list of demands for the Scottish Government. The finance secretary met them all, yet Labour still voted against the budget in panic at impending electoral defeat. When no budget had been approved a week later, they felt forced to vote for exactly the same budget. It is time for Labour to get behind this budget, too, and not to ask for what they know cannot be delivered without either significant increases in taxes or switching of resources from other portfolios—neither of which they have identified.

Equally, I am delighted that the cabinet secretary has listened to businesses and included in the budget their number 1 demand, which is extension of 100 per cent rates relief for the retail, hospitality, leisure, newspaper and aviation sectors for a further year; £719 million of support added to £120 million of—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Gibson, please draw your remarks to a close.

Kenneth Gibson

I will do so. That was backed by £1.1 billion of investment in jobs and skills.

Although the coming year will be difficult, the budget puts us on a clear path to a fairer, greener and more prosperous post-pandemic Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

This is Mark McDonald’s final speech, so I will be a little more generous in the allocation of time than I was to the previous two speakers.

18:33  

Mark McDonald (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. On the off chance that I lose track and forget to do this, I say that, having served under Bruce Crawford in the previous session of Parliament on the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, on which you also served, I regard him as one of the statesmen of Scottish politics and think that he will be remembered as the best Presiding Officer that this Parliament never had. I wish him well for his retirement. That was not to denigrate your role in the chair, Presiding Officer. Having worked alongside you in the north-east of Scotland across a range of issues, I say that, although we have seldom agreed, we have always disagreed respectfully, so I also wish you well as you step down from Parliament at the end of the session.

I will back the budget at decision time. I am grateful that the cabinet secretary was good enough to meet me and to come back to me on some of the specific points that I raised. I recognise that she takes a slightly different view from me on the tax issue, but perhaps the wider debate that the Finance and Constitution Committee has sought to encourage will serve as a better way to explore the best way to ensure that tax in Scotland is progressive in both nature and utility.

There is no doubt that we face an uncertain future as we emerge from the pandemic and the past year has given us all pause to reflect on the things that truly matter the most to us. That must also be true of the expenditure priorities of Government. That means looking at how finances are allocated in global sums but, crucially, it is also about how that funding filters down to the communities that we all represent.

Mental health is a topic that has been at the centre of much discussion in the chamber and it has been brought into even sharper focus by the pandemic. Large-scale expenditure is of course to be welcomed, but if that money is not directed to community-based services that are there to relieve pressure on the crisis end of the system, all that we do is create and maintain a self-perpetuating cycle of tragedy. I hope that there will be careful reflection on how that money is to be spent.

I will, however, play no part in those future deliberations, and it is perhaps appropriate that I now turn to some wider reflections. I have thought long and hard about what to say at this moment, how to find the right words to say and whether it is even appropriate to talk about the concept of achievements when they will never be the things that people think of in relation to my time here. Nevertheless, I remain proud of my work on issues around autism and disabilities. I have tried where possible to amplify the voices of those who are less often heard and to champion causes that matter not just to my family but to many others out there across Scotland.

There have been many gains in that time, such as the expansion of autism-friendly social experiences and the improvement of the accessibility of public buildings for people with autism, including this very Parliament building. There have been gains in support for carers and the campaign for changing places toilets. Where and when I can after I have left this place, I will continue to advocate on those issues, because I will have a lifelong interest in them.

Daniel Johnson

I commend the member for his efforts in advocating for those with autism. I give him the pledge that I and others who are returned to the Parliament will continue to raise those issues, because they are highly important. I thank him for his efforts.

Mark McDonald

I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for that. I know that others share that passion and will continue to advance the issues in the next session of Parliament.

I am also proud to have been able to introduce the baby box to Scotland, which is something that friends and constituents who have had babies since 2017 have been keen to tell me they have been delighted to receive. Its latest iteration, which was introduced by my successor Maree Todd, followed the same approach that I instigated of having a competition to provide an interactive design for the box. I hope that the scheme continues to be a great success in the years to come, showcasing the ambition for Scotland to be the best place in the world to grow up in.

I am, however, only too aware that none of those things will be foremost in anyone’s mind as I speak in this chamber for the final time. I recognise that I have made poor decisions in my life and, although I have never set out to deliberately cause upset to anyone, the fact that people felt hurt and upset by my actions causes me immense regret and sorrow. Although I have apologised sincerely for those actions, I want to take the opportunity to do so in the chamber: I am sorry.

I have learned a lot about myself over the past few years, and I hope that I have been able to emerge as a better person as a consequence. It is difficult to describe how it feels to have a version of yourself held up in front of you that you do not recognise as a true reflection of your character, values or intentions. I can only hope that people will take me as the person that I am now and not as the person that I perhaps once was, or have been portrayed as being.

I am grateful for the support that I have had from friends, many of whom have known me since we were at primary school together and who have stood by me through the best and worst times of my life. I am grateful for the love of my family, who pulled me back from the edge of darkness on more than one occasion. I am grateful for the support and kindness of those in this building who offered it as I found myself in a difficult place. My mantra every day is to try to be a better person today than I was yesterday and to focus on being a better person still tomorrow. I am grateful to those who believe that such a journey is possible, and I thank them for holding my hand along the way.

It has been the privilege of my life to have been able to represent the people and communities of Aberdeen Donside, where I live and grew up. I put on record my thanks to my dedicated team of staff—Kerry, Anna, Sarah and Rachel—who have delivered an outstanding level of support to constituents during the pandemic. They are fantastic individuals and I have no doubt that they will all go on to bigger and better things. I hope that the next MSP for the area will get the same level of joy and satisfaction from representing such a diverse range of communities as I have done. Although I wish that the ending had been a happier one, I sincerely and universally wish everyone good luck, good health and goodbye. [Applause.]

18:39  

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)

Before I get to my substantive contribution, I put on record the support that Mark McDonald has given to the two really important cross-party groups in the Scottish Parliament that I chair, on palliative care and on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions. Without his support, we would not have been able to progress a lot of very important work. I wanted to put that on the record, and I give him my good wishes for the future.

I extend my good wishes to Bruce Crawford, too. Like almost every back-bench MSP has done at one time or another, I have leaned on Bruce for his support, advice and wisdom, and I thank him for all the occasions when he has given me that over the years. I wanted to put that on record here this afternoon.

I am of course here to speak about the budget bill at stage 3, which I will be supporting. It was introduced by the Scottish Government, but it has been shaped by the Parliament. Changes to the budget were always likely, but the scope of those changes was always going to be uncertain, given the wholly unsatisfactory way in which the UK Government has progressed its own budgetary provisions, completely out of synch with Scotland’s budget process.

The Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill was published on 28 January, with the Scottish Government partially flying blind in relation to the resources that it would be able to deploy. Of course, the Scottish Government moved swiftly to allocate additional money both for the current financial year and into the next financial year through the budget that is before us, with Barnett consequentials of £1.1 billion being announced by the UK Government on 15 February.

Some people have sought to paint that as the largesse of the UK, but let us be clear and put it on record that that is borrowed cash, and Scottish taxpayers, along with others, will have to pay that back over many years. That said, I welcome the use of those funds, with the Scottish Government providing an additional £275 million to councils for Covid pressures, an additional £50 million for further and higher education, increases from £50 million to £90 million to help councils to introduce mitigations in schools because of Covid, and an additional £25 million to help tackle poverty and inequality.

There has also been the leverage of additional investment for the budget before us. For instance, £120 million is going into mental health, as we have heard, bringing expenditure up to £1.2 billion, and there is an additional £100 million for low-income households.

I welcome the budget deal with the Greens. It had to wait for last week’s UK budget and for unallocated consequentials to be agreed. Much of that spend has allowed us to go further and quicker in areas where we agree. I welcome the extension of free bus travel to all those aged 21 and under and the agreement on a timetable for our joint commitment to delivering free universal school meals up to primary 7 on a phased basis by August 2022.

I will also mention some of the other agreed commitments to supporting those who are most in need. That includes £130 for households receiving council tax reduction and two payments of £100 for the families of children qualifying for free school meals. As convener of the Social Security Committee, I point out that our committee has wrestled with how best to get money into the pockets of those who are most in need more generally, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. I support and warmly welcome the payments that have been announced. However, in the new session, we will want to take stock of how best we support low-income households. The Parliament must always do everything that it can.

The Scottish social security system is not there simply to mitigate the impact of a flawed UK welfare system—the benefits freeze, the bedroom tax, the rape clause and other provisions that are wholly unsatisfactory. We must use the powers that we have in this place to help those who are most in need. Other provisions in the budget do that: those supporting the best start grant and best start foods, the carers allowance supplement, the young carers grant and the job start payment, to mention just a few. Of course, there is also the game-changing Scottish child payment. Those are all levers by which we can choose to get money quickly to households that are struggling. The budget supports all those things.

If we had all the levers in this place, we could of course do more, but that is a debate for another day. Irrespective of the powers that sit in this place, we must always use them to help those who are most in need.

I have sought to focus on the use of social security powers and the related budget commitments. That is deliberate. The budget will increasingly need to be scrutinised very carefully, and that includes the budgets underpinning our agreed priorities as a Parliament. In this budget, that increases by 7.1 per cent, reaching £4 billion for the first time. We will have to ensure that the fiscal framework can support that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You will have to draw your remarks to a close now, Mr Doris.

Bob Doris

I will finish by saying, as I did when I started, that this budget was shaped by Parliament, and I hope that the Parliament will support it this evening.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to closing speeches.

18:44  

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

I start by paying tribute to Bruce Crawford and to all those who are retiring from Parliament. I have served with Bruce twice on the Finance and Constitution Committee—I came back for more—but I of course remember his skill as the SNP business manager. Indeed, I sometimes thought that he was far too skilful for his own good, and for ours. We will miss him, and all the others, too.

Scottish Labour engaged with the cabinet secretary in good faith during the budget process. Although there is much in the budget that we would like to improve, I said at stage 1 that if the Government accepted our proposal to reward social care workers and give them the respect that they deserve, we would vote for its budget. Nothing could be more straightforward or clear, so for the SNP to set its face against rewarding our social care staff is a huge disappointment.

We clap for social care and healthcare staff every week. They rightly deserve our praise, but they also deserve a raise. They are the people who look after some of the most vulnerable people in our community; who, during the pandemic, have faced death daily, putting themselves and their families at risk; and who coped without adequate personal protective equipment, a lack of guidance and the routine discharge of Covid-positive patients from hospital to their care homes. It is therefore simply unacceptable that we should ask them to do those jobs on poverty pay.

That work force is low-paid and predominantly female, and many workers have second jobs to make ends meet. If we cannot recognise them now, when will we do so and when will we recognise the value of what they do for all of us and for society? The time for warm words has passed. Do not tell me what the Government is doing about the gender pay gap when it ignores this game-changing opportunity. Do not tell me how grateful the SNP is for health and social care workers when it ignores them when it counts most, and do not tell me that collective bargaining—which I heartily approve of—will get us there. The situation requires a step change from the cabinet secretary and a pay rise now.

The Scottish Government has received billions of pounds to deal with Covid. I accept that a lot of that is non-recurring money—indeed, the cabinet secretary confirmed to me yesterday at the Finance and Constitution Committee that she is carrying forward £1.1 billion into the new financial year. However, she also confirmed that over and above that, the Scottish Government has £1.3 billion in recurring funding on top of its existing budget. The cost of providing an immediate wage rise of £12 an hour would have been £470 million, according to the cabinet secretary—I suspect that it is less, but let us accept that figure.

The SNP has said to social care workers that they are worth 20p per hour more—that is all. The cabinet secretary has said that she cannot afford to do anything in the budget because she does not have sufficient recurring funding but that she might be able to find the funding in May. If she can find it then, she can find it now; it is the same financial year—the same budget. I cannot hide my disappointment that the SNP has rejected this opportunity. I am also disappointed that there is only a 2 per cent rise for NHS staff, who we would all agree have been on the front line of the pandemic.

Let me spend my last few minutes on wider issues. We all agree that we need a budget for recovery that will tackle the mass unemployment that will drive hundreds of thousands of people into poverty; that invests in business; that protects jobs and boosts economic recovery; and that remobilises our NHS for the many people who are waiting too long for diagnosis and treatment.

I can welcome much in this budget, but it does not go far enough. I welcome the extension of free school meals and the extra money for mental health. However, England and Wales spent 11 per cent of their health budget on mental health, and Scotland spent only 8 per cent. Despite the announcements, little has changed.

The coronavirus crisis might have exposed the deep inequalities in our society, but it did not create them. The truth is that when the pandemic hit, Scotland’s economy was struggling. We need a bolder, more ambitious budget that builds the foundations for a better, more prosperous future. This budget does not take us far enough down that road.

18:49  

Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con)

As many others have done, I pay tribute to Bruce Crawford. As Murdo Fraser said, he spoke with grace and wisdom. I was trying to think of something to add, and came up with one anecdote. Bruce and I once had breakfast together at the Holyrood hotel, and he kept asking me about Moray and agriculture. It was only when he asked me about refereeing that I realised he thought that I was Douglas Ross. [Laughter.] I had to correct him eventually.

I felt moved by Mark McDonald’s heartfelt speech. Mark and I were at university together. We did not get on particularly well then, and probably do not do so now. However, I was moved by his contribution. I think that people should be treated fairly, and there is always an opportunity for redemption.

On the matter in hand, I recognise Willie Rennie’s concession on mental health in the budget, but joining forces with the SNP and Greens is perhaps a big price to pay. As he said, he is Mr Consensual.

I congratulate the cabinet secretary on securing her budget. As I said in the debate a fortnight ago, there are many positives in it to welcome. We are all pleased to see the extra funding for the NHS, as well as the extension of 100 per cent rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses and the newspaper sector. The SNP planned to end that support until the Scottish Conservatives forced it to back down. I am glad that we did, because more than 14,000 Scottish businesses will now find it easier to get through the crisis.

Regarding the freeze on income tax, despite the SNP’s natural instinct to raise taxes, thanks to pressure from the Scottish Conservatives, hard-pressed families are finally getting a break.

As ever, the Greens will vote for the budget, but it will not address the key environmental failures of the SNP. There are many of them, but I will be as brief as possible. There is the failure to meet the 2013 recycling rate target; the failure to meet biodiversity targets; the failure to eradicate fuel poverty as promised; the failure to meet the target of 11 per cent of heat from renewables by 2020; and a 400 per cent increase in incineration, making Scotland the ashtray of Europe. I could go on, but I realise that time is short. The point is that, given that climate challenge is the greatest challenge that we face, this budget will not go far enough. In some ways, it goes to show that the Greens are merely the anarchist wing of the SNP.

I just wish that the SNP had listened to the Scottish Conservatives more, and delivered a road map to recovery, both for the short term to open up businesses and for the long term in relation to low-carbon projects, such as the electric arc furnace or a plastics recycling plant. As the cabinet secretary will have been aware when she assisted in announcing the ban on plastic straws, currently only 2 per cent of plastics that are collected in Scotland for recycling is actually recycled in Scotland. For the benefit of the Greens, I point out that that leaves 98 per cent that is not.

I wish that the SNP had delivered the Swedish-style job security council that we proposed, to match up those who need work with new opportunities, or the procurement reform that we suggested to favour local businesses, protect jobs and retain wealth in our communities. Those are sensible measures that would help to start and sustain the recovery. However, we see no sign of them—rather, we have a budget that does not go far enough, despite our reasonable requests.

Due to the pandemic, councils face a £0.5 billion black hole, but the SNP voted against Scottish Conservative plans to guarantee them a proportion of the Government’s budget, rather than the SNP offer. That point was well made by Murdo Fraser, who made it clear that services will be under severe pressure. Annie Wells described councils as “the whipping boys”.

The housing budget has been slashed by £148 million, the innovation and industry budget is down by £66 million and the rail infrastructure budget has been cut by £33 million. I could go on. Do those cuts sound like this is a Government with its eye on recovery?

Contrast that with the budget that the UK chancellor has delivered, which has another £1.2 billion for Scotland, bringing the total to more than £13 billion.

Kate Forbes

Does Maurice Golden think that the chancellor went far enough on non-domestic rates?

Maurice Golden

I am delighted that, in the Scottish Parliament, Kate Forbes listened to the Scottish Conservatives on non-domestic rates and extended relief by 100 per cent. I am confident that if we had more Scottish Conservatives in Westminster standing up for Scotland, we would have a far stronger, better push for Scottish constituencies. Sadly, according to Pete Wishart, the longest-serving MP in Scotland, the biggest contribution of SNP MPs in a generation has been two amendments to a finance bill, asking for more information. That is hardly something for Scotland to be proud of.

We are delighted about the extension of furlough, the British Government scheme that has protected 1 million Scottish jobs, and about the millions of pounds in the UK budget for low-carbon projects in the north-east of Scotland and a North Sea transition deal that will kick off green recovery efforts. It is a British budget that is on Scotland’s side, but the SNP will oppose it simply because it comes from the Conservatives. The SNP’s focus will be on holding another illegal wildcat referendum this year—how will that support Scotland’s recovery?

The SNP needs to get its act together. Protecting jobs, helping families and launching a recovery, not a referendum—those should be its priorities.

18:56  

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance (Kate Forbes)

I pay tribute to three speeches that had nothing to do with the budget. The first was by Willie Rennie, who said that the public do not want to see, witness or watch political squabbling in the middle of a global pandemic. I agree, and I am proud that, in a particularly unpleasant political climate, the budget will be supported on a cross-party basis.

The second speech was that of Bruce Crawford, who talked about kindness and respect. He said that words matter, which they do. We often talk about the rise of abuse and vitriol in Scottish political discourse, and that starts with us. I hope that we all rise to the challenge that he lay down for the next parliamentary session.

Finally, politics would be all the better and kinder if we saw more of the humility and humanity that was shared in Mark McDonald’s speech and less of the arrogance and self-righteousness that is so often associated with politicians. Self-evidently, nobody in the chamber, including me, is perfect. I commend Mark McDonald for his comments, his representation of the north-east in meetings and correspondence with me, and his service to his constituents over the years. I hope that the ring-fenced £15 million of funding for the north-east economy will serve his constituents well.

Every member in the chamber has welcomed elements of the budget in their speech. The funding and initiatives that they have welcomed and the certainty and stability that our constituents want can be delivered only if the budget is passed.

A number of members have commented on pay and public sector pay policy, and Labour members have put on record their interest in securing a fair deal for social care workers. Like Kenneth Gibson, I refute and dispute the position that the UK Government has taken in its approach to public sector and NHS pay. The approach in England is simply not fair to front-line staff, who have worked so hard during the pandemic. We recognised that hard work and gave our NHS staff a £500 thank-you bonus. We still hope that the UK Government will follow our lead and do likewise for vital health and care staff in England. We have already given a 1 per cent uplift—backdated to December—as a floor in NHS pay negotiations, and we are negotiating with staff representatives, including unions, on going further to deliver a fair pay deal.

Clearly, the wider public sector pay policy, which has been amended today, does not apply directly to NHS staff, as their pay is negotiated separately. It does indicate, though, that we are taking a different approach in Scotland, with a guaranteed pay rise of at least 3.2 per cent for those who earn less than £25,000 and 2 per cent for those who earn up to £40,000. Not only does our pay policy reflect the huge contribution that public sector workers have made in tackling the pandemic, it does so in a progressive way, prioritising pay rises for lower earners.

The Tories welcomed a number of initiatives. They called for non-domestic rates relief to be extended. We delivered. They called for free school meals to be extended and expanded. We have delivered. They called for additional funding for local government, which I delivered on 16 February. They can call for everything and anything that they want, but the people of Scotland will see them voting tonight against all the initiatives that they called for and all the representations that they made on behalf of Scottish businesses, Scottish families and Scottish taxpayers. They have talked about the broad shoulders of the union while seeming to forget that people in Scotland happen to pay taxes to UK Government coffers as well and that the UK Government has engineered our reliance on itself by denying us, and depriving us of, very basic fiscal powers that would allow us to borrow like every other normal Government around the world in order to deal with the pandemic.

Willie Rennie talked about what the Liberal Democrats have secured in the budget. After five years of minority Government in which, like my predecessor, I have had to negotiate with other parties, people can see the difference that other parties can make in securing their key initiatives if they engage rather than carp from the sidelines.

Patrick Harvie talked about some of the big questions that the Parliament and elected politicians will face in the future, including on the tax base. That is one area for questioning. There are others. The fiscal framework will come under review next year. The cross-party Finance and Constitution Committee has indicated where the fiscal framework should go. I have suggested a broad review of the fiscal framework, which has been found wanting during the pandemic.

The other big question is on how we reshape our economy. The budget today sets the groundwork for reshaping our economy by investing in retraining, in reskilling, in the future growth of our tech sector and in low-carbon initiatives.

John Mason talked about the need to use our funding wisely and about having to live within our means. Of course, the Scottish Government has to balance its budget. I am sure that all of us could write lists of priorities, things that we want to do and additional funding that we want to secure. That is all true, but, as John Mason said, within a balanced budget, increasing funding in one area—for example, local government—would require an honest and transparent discussion about where that funding was to come from. If the request is to increase funding for local government—which is a perfectly reasonable request to make—it must be accepted that that funding will need to come from elsewhere. We cannot ask for increases in every budget line without agreeing where they are going to come from.

One comment that did not get as much attention today was about the need for capital infrastructure and for additional investment in that infrastructure. There will be significant increases in capital investment not just over the next year but over the next five years, to provide certainty and to inject confidence in our economy. That is, of course, despite a 5 per cent cut to the Scottish Government’s capital budget, which was not reversed at the most recent UK budget. Instead, we saw a strange and unpublished approach to levelling up whereby it seems that certain seats in Scotland got more in the way of levelling-up funding—or at least a commitment to more of it—than elsewhere. The challenge that the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government face is in the UK Government cutting our capital budgets and then deciding itself how to spend that money, purely in order to put a union jack on it. If that happens, I think that the people of Scotland will have serious questions about its priorities.

I reiterate my appreciation of the constructive nature of the cross-party discussions that we have had on the budget. This is a budget that, ultimately, delivers for the nation. It delivers for the business community, for households and for our public services. It deals with the issues of today while laying the groundwork for recovery. It will help to create and protect jobs, support a sustainable recovery and respond to the pandemic while delivering the certainty that businesses and people need.

With that in mind, I urge all members to support the budget today. I commend it to the chamber.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first question this evening is, that motion S5M-24300, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the climate change plan, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament notes the reports of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee on the Scottish Government document, Securing a green recovery on a path to net zero: climate change plan 2018-2032.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-24318, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. Because the question is on legislation, we will have to suspend for a few moments to allow members in the chamber and online to access the voting app.

19:10 Meeting suspended.  

19:13 On resuming—  

The Presiding Officer

We will proceed with the division on motion S5M-24318.

The vote is now closed. Please let me know if you were not able to vote.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Ind)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Reform)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 70, Against 53, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) (No. 5) Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes decision time. We will move shortly to a members’ business debate in the name of Beatrice Wishart. I urge members who are leaving the chamber to wear their masks, to follow the one-way system and to keep 2m distance from others throughout the campus.