Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill. As there are no amendments to be considered, we move straight to the debate on motion S1M-2674, in the name of Andy Kerr. If Mr Kerr and other speakers could trim their remarks by about a minute, that would be helpful.
I know that this is the most eagerly awaited stage 3 debate of the past couple of days. I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate.
The Opposition has indicated that it does not wish to oppose the passage of the bill, so I propose to say only a few words about it before developing some of the issues that have been raised by members during our previous debates on the financial decision-making process.
This budget will deliver improvement in the daily lives of Scotland's people. It will provide for repairs to our children's schools, better roads and better facilities in hospitals. It will deliver five major new trunk road schemes, 11,000 jobs safeguarded or created every year and a full range of health care for the nation. More important, it will enable us to make a start on preventive health measures. Fresh fruit for infants will be delivered by health boards throughout Scotland to local playgroups and other day care centres. Free toothpaste and toothbrushes will be provided for Scotland's children—tackling an issue that was raised in the debate on the Water Industry (Scotland) Bill. The budget for helping people to quit smoking will be doubled, and there will be universal provision of early education to all three-year-olds and four-year-olds.
That is what the budget means. The measures that I have outlined will have a real impact. We are talking not about numbers in a dusty old document that is tucked away somewhere, but about real services delivered to real Scots.
Can the minister provide us with figures for the underspend in the previous two budgets? Is there an estimate for what the underspend will be in this budget? Can the minister confirm that those underspends are allocated to other budgets in the course of the financial year and not lost to the Parliament?
The figures for this year are not currently available, but they will be submitted to the Parliament. Many of the items that are affected by end-year flexibility are planned underspends that result from our working in concert with partners that deliver projects for us or from large capital projects. Such underspends are not the result of mismanagement of resources.
As I have said previously, when I worked in local government I found it depressing that no EYF or underspends were allowed. As a result, people would buy products and services at the end of the financial year simply to get rid of the cash. The Executive is seeking to fine-tune the system—my colleague Peter Peacock deals with this matter with particular aptitude—so that we can reduce EYF as much as possible. However, we must ensure that our money is well spent on the services on which Scottish people expect us to spend it.
We will report to the Parliament on this matter later. EYF remains a constant concern for us, but it allows us flexibility in our budget and enables us to deal with capital slippage and similar matters.
What are the figures?
Last year the underspend was £718.3 million.
The budget process is not so much about EYF or underspend as about schools, resources, nursery places, nurses and doctors. Those are the really important matters that affect the lives of Scottish people.
As I have made clear in previous debates, the Scottish people are interested in two things. First, they want to ensure that their money is being spent on improvements that will change their daily lives. Secondly, they want to know that the Government is looking after their money and to be able to see how well the money is being spent.
Spending the public's money is governed by a number of key principles. We must have clarity before we take any decisions on what resources will buy and when those resources will come to us. We must examine how those resources will deliver the required outputs and outcomes and the arrangements that we need to have with our third-party colleagues, who help us to deliver services. We must specify clearly what benefits the improved services will bring and we must measure and assess those benefits. We must also establish key milestones so that we can monitor delivery and ensure that it is achieved.
In the interests of the debate that will take place over the next 35 minutes, can the minister tell us why it is sensible—given that devolution was meant to allow Scotland to set its own priorities for public services—for us to have to wait for allocations to be made in London before we can consider increasing our funding in any area?
We benefit from the Scottish block, which the chancellor Gordon Brown has managed to increase in every year in which he has been chancellor. Those resources have increased dramatically since this Parliament was established, as well as in the period before that. I am quite happy to receive the Scottish block. The important point is that we in Scotland should decide how we spend our money. The Scottish block grant comes from the devolved settlement, which I support but Mr Wilson clearly does not.
I turn to the priorities and how we see the resources of Scotland being used. The First Minister has set clear objectives on health, education, jobs, crime and transport, which we clearly want to meet. As well as pursuing those priorities, we will focus on closing the opportunity gap, providing equality in life's chances and ensuring that what we do is financially and environmentally sustainable.
Long-term financial planning is the key and continuing sound financial decision making is the future. Therefore, with regard to the demands that are made throughout Scotland for increased public services, there will never be enough money to do everything that we want to do and that our communities want us to do. We have to make tough decisions about allocations of resources and prioritise those resources to meet Scottish needs.
I am conscious of the time that is available to me. What I want to say in closing this part of the debate is that the Finance Committee and I are agreed about the process. We have been involved in discussions on that, which can be repetitive on occasion, and I want to work to improve the process. However, the process reflects the advice that we received from the financial issues advisory group. I believe that we have met many of the aims that FIAG set out for us. However, improvement is always a possibility for us and we must ensure that we make time in the future to benefit from the good suggestions that we received from the committee and others about how we deal with the budget bill process.
This is a good bill, which delivers for Scotland and delivers for the people of Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) (No.3) Bill be passed.
I thank Mr Kerr for his end-speech flexibility and hope that Mr Morgan can be similarly economical.
I will certainly try to be economical.
We have heard what would purport to be a good-news story. I compliment the minister on at least not reeling off huge figures, which he often does. Figures mean nothing to the public at large—they are interested in services, not in figures.
Does Mr Morgan welcome the nearly 3,000 pre-school education places in the constituency that he represents; the £500,000 that was allocated to Crichton campus; the money that was given to Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board; and the Scottish Enterprise money that was put into the area as a result of foot-and-mouth? All that money came out of the Scottish budget and is meeting Scottish needs.
I am certainly glad that some money from the Scottish budget goes into Dumfries and Galloway; that is welcome. The minister makes the point for me that simply reeling off a ream of statistics is not what the public are interested in, because, quite frankly, they have heard it all before from politicians. I suspect that most people have a great deal of difficulty in connecting what ministers say, and what the documents accompanying the bill say, with the reality that they see on the street.
The minister and the Executive either believe or hope that the population have both collective amnesia and collective blindness. They hope that the population have collective amnesia to forget that, since 1997—not 1999—spending levels have been less than they were under the Tories. That collective amnesia would mean forgetting that a lot of the current extra spending is to undo the damage that was done in earlier years. They hope that the public have collective blindness; they are meant to ignore the reality of what is happening to public services.
The minister trumpeted only recently the increased allocations to local authorities. The population sees the reality of above-inflation council tax increases and decreases in services.
We have more passengers in the rail system, but those passengers are suffering more delays and cancellations. Our trunk road network is grinding to a halt and that is a block on the country's economic development. Many local roads seem to be a series of potholes connected by small pieces of tarmac, rather than being roads.
We are told that there is record spending on health, but there are closed waiting lists, long waiting lists and increasingly dissatisfied customers.
Many small rural communities—certainly in Dumfries and Galloway, which the minister mentioned—are deeply distressed by the threat to close local schools. Young children face five to 11 years of intolerably long journeys to school, particularly on winter evenings.
The reality with water is that there have been increases in charges of up to three-figure percentages.
Many offenders are not prosecuted in the justice system, not because of a policy decision, but because the Procurator Fiscal Service does not have the resources to prosecute and the courts do not have the capability to process.
It is pretty obvious how the public would measure performance, but let us look at how the Executive measures performance in the budget documents.
The Executive set out, quite rightly, to measure performance through outcomes—we agree with the minister on that point. However, it is not the minister's figures that are important at the end of the day, but what they achieve. The Executive has chosen to measure outcomes through performance targets, which are given for every department as a way of measuring success. Normally, a benchmark would be set, against which those performance targets would be measured. However, of the 268 performance targets that I have identified, only 35, or 13 per cent, have benchmarks that allow performance to be measured. The lack of benchmarks means that we are unable to use past performance as an indicator of success or failure. There is no point in saying that 75 per cent achieved something, if the benchmark for success should be 95 per cent.
More worrying is the fact that, in 71 targets, no figure for the next financial year has been set. Not only can we not measure past success, but we will not be able to compare what was promised with what is delivered next year. There is further cause for concern about where those 71 non-targets are concentrated. Of the 19 health performance targets, 11 have no set measurable targets for the next financial year; of 23 education performance targets, 20 have no set measurable targets; and of 30 enterprise and lifelong learning targets, 21 have no set measurable targets. There is no consistency across departments. The health department, which has a budget of £6 billion, has 19 extremely vague targets, yet the environment and rural affairs department, which has a budget that is about one sixth of the size of the health budget, has 47 detailed targets.
In the light of the debate that took place earlier today, I would have liked to concentrate briefly on cross-cutting issues, particularly in rural development. Suffice to say that I can see few targets that relate specifically to rural areas, with the welcome exception of rural transport. We must develop further the cross-cutting approach, so that targets are set for cross-cutting issues, particularly in rural development but in other areas, too.
I conclude by quoting the minister—I am sure that he will be delighted to hear his own words again. During the stage 1 debate, he said:
"Increases in the amount of resources that are made available … are always welcome, but it is what we do with those resources—what we deliver—that really matters."—[Official Report, 23 January 2002; c 5608.]
How true. That is how the minister will be judged in a year from May and I suspect that he and the Executive will be found wanting.
I ask David Davidson to try to keep his speech to four minutes.
The purpose of a budget is not just to publicise what is spent, but to focus on priorities and on what is delivered for the money. There is agreement among the Opposition parties that we are not getting that focus at present. The people of Scotland want to see delivery. As Alasdair Morgan said, they are interested not in large numbers or in what we spend, but in the bang for the buck, if I may use that colloquial term.
The minister talked about so-called successes, but the truth is that our public services are in some difficulty. Why, when the minister claims to be throwing money into health, do we continue to see NHS trust deficits, postcode prescribing, blocked beds, a breakdown in relations with care homes, waiting list and waiting time increases, and plunging morale in the service? Those issues do not seem to match the minister's rhetoric.
The minister claims that we are spending more money on education, yet there are deficit problems for universities and a fairly big crisis in further education. In relation to schools, the McCrone settlement does not help some of the rural councils in the way in which I believe the minister and his colleagues intended. In other words, this debate is not about the money but about what is done with that money and how it is focused.
As members have said before, local government is under great pressure to increase council tax. My own council, Aberdeenshire, today announced an increase in council tax of just over 6 per cent, which is more than the rate of inflation. However, the minister argues that Aberdeenshire Council gets enough money. Is it simply that the Lib-Dems who run the council cannot cope?
No—the council is expanding its services.
Fine—thank you.
Let us examine the evidence of what has happened in taxation since the Executive came to power. There has been a rise in council tax that is equivalent to more than 2p in the pound on standard rate income tax. On the graduate tax—
Let me finish my point.
Business rates have been increased, which is a direct hit on our economy.
Mr Davidson paints a fairly false picture of public services that lack resources and then he talks about the tax-raising agenda. What will his party do on public services and taxation?
The issue is not just about assets; it is about managing the assets. It is not just about raising taxation; it is about what one does with the money and how one creates an economy within which we can prosper. In simple terms, there is no specific discussion in the budget of the infrastructure that we require for the future economy of Scotland. Apart from the sticking plaster for foot-and-mouth disease, the budget contains nothing about rebuilding the rural economy, with all its problems. Only a lump sum of money is specified—there is no detail.
When will we get a budget that is focused on Scotland's ability to create wealth? That is what provides sustainable jobs, decent public services and confidence for the future. We have an impending recession, which has already hit traditional industries in parts of Scotland. At this time, more focus in the budget—on infrastructure, education and training—is vital. We must reduce the burdens on business to encourage investment.
A budget should demonstrate strategic thinking—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, the member is in his last minute.
The budget should be an inspiration for the people to have confidence in their leadership. This budget fails totally to address Scotland's major concerns. It does not recognise the demands on health and education and the problems of rural Scotland. It does nothing to sustain a successful economy. Tourism is supposed to be our largest industry. Although the budget offered an opportunity to sort out the structures and the support that the tourism industry needs, on that subject too it provides nothing.
One day the Executive will learn that government is not just about spending; it is about management of the assets—what we have in Scotland that we can work with. Government is not about central control, but about giving people the freedom to develop within the public services and the culture that we have. The present budget has no focus or drive. It will not inspire; it is a mere continuation of Labour's tax-and-spend mentality—as opposed to the spend-and-pray mentality of the separatists.
With great regret, I am giving up being the Liberal Democrats' finance spokesman. I will pass on the job to Jamie Stone, which will improve the sartorial appearance of the Finance Committee. There was a year when the meetings of the Procedures Committee and the Finance Committee were on different days, but for the past few weeks, and until next June, both committees will often meet on the same day at roughly the same time. To remain on both committees would not be fair to either. One committee will get the full and undivided attention of Jamie Stone; the other will get mine.
I welcome the budget. We are starting to address some of the issues and are making modest improvements. Part of Alasdair Morgan's speech was quite fair—a whole lot of things are wrong with almost all our public services. That is because the Westminster system, under whatever Government, failed Scotland for many years. It will take a while to put that right.
We are starting to put that right. For example, although, like other members, I have often complained about the underfunding in local government, a little bit more funding is beginning to appear. Even Aberdeenshire Council, which has been one of the worst-affected councils, has begun to be able to make modest improvements in various services. We are moving forward, but there is a long way to go.
Today, Aberdeenshire Council implemented a further £6.8 million of cuts. The very modest improvements in one or two services represented barely a quarter of that. I would not regard that as great progress. Would Mr Gorrie?
The improvements are real. The cuts are cuts that do not affect front-line services. That is how I understand things. I am not saying that everything is marvellous, but I think that we are beginning to turn the corner and go in the right direction.
We should pay more attention to the cross-cutting areas—for example, to treating the alcohol problem as seriously as the drugs problem. The additional money for dealing with drugs—particularly on the treatment side, rather than the punishment side—has been very welcome. The alcohol problem needs the same sort of treatment. That would affect a range of budgets.
The lack of funding for preventive medicine affects education, sport, health and other portfolios. Things such as the provision of alternatives to custody to keep young people out of jail impact on many different departments. We have not yet got our act together on proper co-operation between departments.
The Finance Committee made a recommendation—which was also, I believe, in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—that the Parliament and the Executive should report back to the people. One might call it a citizens contract, which would be a comprehensible leaflet that set out where the public's money goes. That would help a lot. It is understandable that people are confused and ignorant about the budget process because, although this purple document—the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill—may be legally correct, it does not tell one anything about anything. Some sort of reporting back, as is done by many councils, would be a step forward and might improve the public's perception of the Parliament. We could certainly do with that.
Speeches should be of four minutes. I call Brian Adam.
I will be winding up.
Sorry. I call Andrew Wilson.
In anyone's choice of speakers, I am always delighted to play second fiddle to Brian Adam.
It is always a pleasure to take part in a budget debate, but it is unique to this Parliament that the budget takes place more with a whimper than with a bang. It must be unique to Scotland that the budget debate is of no consequence to the media and to the wider general public. The reasons for that are clear. Budgets in this Parliament tend to be merely managerial and administrative efforts. In budget debates, we deal with none of the serious, big questions that should be faced by politicians who represent the general public. We cannot debate the role of the state, the size of the state, how we are taxed, how we distribute wealth or, indeed, how we create wealth. Nothing in the budget debates in this Parliament has an impact on those matters.
That is not the fault of the minister. It is quite right that we debate the priorities of the day. Most parties are agreed on where 95 to 98 per cent of the budget should go, so the disagreements tend to be at the margin. However, when public policy is debated in normal countries, the bigger questions are at the heart of the budget debate. Until we become a normal country, the Parliament will not be able to provide the necessary political and civic leadership to get this nation out of mediocrity and to promote respect for public service so that, instead of regarding tax as good money that is poured after bad, it can be regarded as money well spent. That is critical to the success of the Parliament.
Politicians of other parties and much of the wider public do not realise that the Parliament has fewer financial powers than any other Parliament on earth. Such a realisation should help the Labour Government, because it means that the failure of outcomes that is experienced in all public services is not the fault of individual ministers. Scottish ministers do not have the powers at their disposal to deliver a real change in practice.
Will the member give way?
I am delighted to give way.
Does Mr Wilson agree that, within their portfolios, the Minister for Finance and Public Services and his colleagues have great powers as to what they spend their money on, and that they are failing to deliver within those powers?
Frankly, no. Most budgets are simply the outcome of the previous year's spending, with some marginal changes on the fringes. Until we politicians admit that to each other and to the general public, we will not deliver change. The emperor has no clothes. This year's budget is always the same as the previous year's budget, with marginal changes that depend on the outcome of decisions that are taken in London.
To be frank, the budget that Andy Kerr has delivered would be no different if David Davidson were finance minister, as there would be no difference in priorities. The core questions that politicians should face concern how tax is to be raised, how wealth should be distributed and how the economy can be got moving. The Parliament can do none of the above. We have no powers that had not previously been given to the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is ironic. Our only power is the ability to legislate; we are not able to take the bigger decisions. That is a core structural weakness in the devolution settlement, which must be changed.
After three years, the one bright spark on the horizon is that all politicians have accepted the existence of the Barnett squeeze. Even Helen Liddell—when she was taking time out from visiting the hairdresser's and from her French lessons—has admitted that the Barnett squeeze is having an impact. I seriously object to the fact that the budget for this democratically elected Parliament is determined by the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose role has had its time and is both out of date and out of place in the 21st century.
My concluding plea is that we must recognise that budget debates will change nothing and that people will look with disdain on this Parliament for the next four years unless we accept that we must equip ourselves with proper powers, so that serious decisions can be taken and so that such debates are better attended, more interesting and of greater relevance to the wider public.
I had to pinch myself during David Davidson's speech, but not just to keep myself awake. I was thinking of the Conservative years and of the priority that his party did not put on investment in our infrastructure—in water, in rail, in education and in a whole series of areas. I was thinking of all the things that were not done and all the areas in which money was not spent.
Since we introduced the first Scottish budget, spending on health and community care is up by 20 per cent, spending on education is up by 20 per cent, spending on transport is up by a third, spending on justice is up by 17 per cent and spending on enterprise and lifelong learning has increased by 12 per cent. Those are the facts. There is a lot of good news. Many very positive things are happening and more resources are being made available for public services.
What do we get from the Opposition parties? We get two responses. On the one hand, Alasdair Morgan's politics are the politics of denial. He says, "It's not happening. Where is it, this invisible money?" However, it is real money and it is really going into services.
On the other hand, we heard from Andrew Wilson a speech that was basically—
Will Mr McNulty take an intervention?
I would like to finish my point about Andrew Wilson. Andrew made the same speech that he always makes. He says, "I wouldn't start from here." The Scottish people want us to start from here. They want to know how we will improve public services with the money that we have, but the SNP does not have a single idea.
Will Mr McNulty tell me how many letters he gets, or how many people queue up at his surgery, to tell him how wonderful things are? My experience is totally to the contrary.
People identify areas in which there are problems and we try to improve those areas. I am also conscious that other things, such as classroom assistants in schools, the achievements of the McCrone settlement and the new investments in hospitals and health facilities, are having a very positive effect on people in Scotland. To listen to Alasdair Morgan, one would think that those things were not happening, but they are.
There is a real issue to do with priorities. Mike Rumbles asked a whole series of questions today about how many paperclips the Scottish Executive has used. Is that where we should be concentrating our attention? We must focus on how to get the best value for the money that we spend. We should be doing that, and the Finance Committee will be doing that.
There are things that we need to improve, to do with knowing how money is spent and ensuring that we get valid outcomes and better outputs for the money. That is a collective job for the Parliament and the Executive, and we are positively engaged in that work. Saying that there are no more resources or that improvements are not being made is simply to misrepresent to Scotland the valid work of the Parliament. SNP members should wake up and smell the coffee, because people want us to do a job. If SNP members are not prepared to do it, that is their lookout, but in 2003 people will re-elect us to continue the job that we have started.
Because there is no amendment and because, this being a stage 3 debate, there is no wind-up speech, I am happy to call Brian Adam.
I have certainly enjoyed the debate rather more than I enjoyed previous debates, because it has been shorter. I do not think that we recognise the budget document as a proper budget. All that it is is a series of statements about what the Executive intends to do.
Tomorrow's papers will be full of budgets, but not this one. They will be full of what is happening at local level, as all the councils have set their council tax, and people will know how much more they will have to pay and which services are to be cut or even—if only occasionally—improved. If the budget that we are debating were a real budget, over which we had real influence in a range of areas, we would have a great deal of interest in the public galleries, in the press gallery and perhaps even on the benches of all parties in the chamber, but we do not have that level of interest.
That is a reflection of the weakness of the financial powers of the Parliament. I was interested in the response in the name of the minister to a letter from the Finance Committee; we considered that response at our last meeting. As he engages with his brief, perhaps the minister will influence the civil service responses a little more than he did on that occasion. In spite of his warm words about engaging with the committee to improve the process, his response to the most recent letter from the Finance Committee did not give me much hope of improvement. I am sure that the minister will read carefully the Official Report of that meeting and the further response from the committee.
The SNP will not oppose the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill, because it would be wholly inappropriate to provide no money for services. However, it does not say much for our Parliament that we cannot influence the big decisions that affect our lives because they are taken elsewhere.
Brian Adam took me by surprise by finishing so quickly, so I will allow Sylvia Jackson two minutes to speak.
I do not need two minutes. I want to raise the matter of the funding for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. The funding is far below what was anticipated, based on Scottish Natural Heritage's funding. I know that the Finance Committee raised the matter with the minister and I have raised it with other ministers. I seek an assurance that the funding will be investigated. Given that such a lot of work has been put into the national park, it would be a shame if it were not adequately funded.
I call Peter Peacock to wind up the debate.
That invitation has come as a great shock to me because I thought that I would have only two minutes. However, I shall keep talking as long as you wish.
As members have indicated, we have had a series of discussions on the process of the budget. It is a three-phase process, which started way back in March 2001 and has involved public consultation, close scrutiny by the Finance Committee and, finally, consideration of the bill. Some people, including Andy Kerr, find it a slightly repetitive process. However, perhaps that is just Andrew Wilson's speeches—we get the same speech every year. We are more than happy to discuss with the Finance Committee ways in which we can amend the process in the interests of Parliament without reducing the level of scrutiny.
It is regrettable that Alasdair Morgan reverted to SNP type in his speech. He began with a large whine about the ills of the world and went on to say that people do not understand statistics and that ministers should not use them to get their points across. However, Alasdair Morgan then spent four minutes reading statistics.
Alasdair Morgan indicated disagreement.
If the member wishes to make an intervention, I would be happy to give way.
Alasdair Morgan also expressed the view that the reality on the street was different from the words that ministers use. However, the reality for the people whom I represent and whom I hear about across Scotland is—as Des McNulty said—the experience of a new range of services across Scotland. For example, the parents of all three and four-year-olds are now able to get their children into nursery or pre-school provision. In rural Scotland in particular, that is a huge transformation from the situation three or four years ago when that was simply not possible. The reality for rural parents is going to primary school with their kids in the morning, finding that a classroom assistant is helping the teacher and discovering that, as a consequence, their child can read better sooner, count better sooner—it is a pity the SNP cannot do that—and is making real progress.
The reality for many parents in Dumfries and Galloway at the beginning of the winter term this year will be going to a totally different school, much further away from where they live, because the council has been forced to shut schools.
Such local matters are examples of councils quite properly making provision for the long term in recognition of the fact that school pupil numbers are declining dramatically. The real situation that parents in Dumfries and Galloway experience every day involves classroom assistants, their child doing better in school and provision for their pre-school child that was not in place before. The reality in Dumfries and Galloway, as in the Highlands, Argyll and Bute and other rural parts of Scotland, is that, because of the public transport fund and the rural transport fund, people can access public transport in a way that they were unable to before.
That has made a huge difference to people who were previously excluded from society. People throughout Scotland—in the Highlands, the Borders or Glasgow—can go to new schools that have been built with support from public funds. Those schools simply did not exist before.
I will give the minister another example. People in rural Aberdeenshire are concerned that their children, like children in Dumfries and Galloway, will be forced to travel much further to school. That is because the capital programme has been driven by the private finance initiative or public-private partnerships. People are concerned about the competitive nature of getting access to those funds. That is the reality of service delivery. It is not about services being delivered locally; it is about finances being tailored to satisfy a political doctrine.
Over the past century, the pattern of school provision has changed to meet modern circumstances and the needs of the population. The truth is that, as Donald Gorrie said, people in Aberdeenshire are experiencing growth in public services and real change of the sort that I have been describing—access to new hospitals, new day care facilities, and better respite care facilities.
The budget that we are debating provides finance for free personal care. That is a real service for real people that will change their lives and make their lives better.
Attainment levels at secondary schools are moving ahead significantly. Scotland's performance relative to that of others is improving all the time. People with better qualifications are able to get jobs and to have the security of a job in the future and the dignity and prosperity that those jobs bring.
The minister will be aware of the concern across Scotland about the method of funding new buildings and the inefficiency that is inherent in the private finance initiative. Many citizens want us to use public money. The minister has confirmed that one penny added to the income tax rate would raise £230 million in Scotland. Will the minister elaborate on how long it would take for that one penny on the income tax rate to be committed under the budgetary process, and how much it would cost to collect?
The private finance initiative is bringing huge benefits to the schools and health sectors in Scotland. The funding that comes from the public purse allows that investment to take place.
School building work is taking place that is worth £500 million. Bids are coming in from local authorities for several hundreds of millions of pounds more than that to make progress and to deliver the services that people want. That is the reality for Scotland. Day by day, people are experiencing improvements in their services and their lives.
I asked a question.
I am being told by the Presiding Officer that I cannot give way.
I am sorry that Donald Gorrie has indicated that he is stepping down from his role as the Liberal Democrat finance spokesperson. As everybody in the Parliament knows—perhaps people in the coalition know more than most—Donald Gorrie is always very challenging. He thinks very carefully about the issues and I thank him for the contribution that he has made.
Donald Gorrie said that the budget process is more open than it was in the past. It allows people to participate in new ways. As he also said, there is a genuine improvement in services.
The budget delivers spending decisions that will contribute significantly to the achievement of our developing priorities in Scotland. Those priorities revolve around health, jobs, education, transport and reducing crime. That is the stuff of sound and sensible government, not the hot air of Opposition politics.
The budget delivers a record £19.5 billion to meet the needs of Scots in the ways that I have described in my closing remarks. The budget is delivered by the highly respected and sound Barnett formula, which serves Scotland and the rest of the UK so well. It is a stable way of financing our nation's public services.
The budget also delivers the resources for free personal care, which will ensure that all our people are treated with dignity. It continues to deliver resources for teachers, creating the conditions in our classrooms to establish a world-class education system. It delivers the universal provision of early education for all three and four-year-olds. It authorises expenditure of more than £6 billion on the health service—nearly £0.5 billion more than last year. That money provides a full range of health care services as well as measures to improve health, such as giving fresh fruit to infants, providing free toothpaste and toothbrushes for children and doubling the budget to help people quit smoking.
The budget is a record budget for Scotland. It focuses on Scotland's priorities and will make a real difference to the lives of people all over Scotland. I commend it to the Parliament.