Strategic Spending Review
The next item of business is a debate on the strategic spending review. I call Iain Gray.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
"I thank the minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy of it. I welcome aspects of it, as do we all, but I do so with the caveat that the devil is in the detail … Members of all parties could make more considered and useful speeches if the debate were held some days after the statement was made. The arrangement must be changed. It is nonsense to have so little time".
That is how Mr Morgan opened the debate for the Scottish National Party on the previous spending review in 2004. Later, a certain Mr Lochhead agreed, saying:
"We have had barely a few minutes to digest the statement. I hope that we can come back to the topic in the very near future to have a proper debate on it."—[Official Report, 29 September 2004; c 10675, 10685.]
It is a great pity that, now that Mr Lochhead is a minister, he and his colleagues are unwilling to produce the budget and defend it in detail as we asked them to do last week. The question remains: what do they have to hide? Moreover, it is a great pity that they appear to have removed from the budget documents the real-terms spending tables that their predecessor Administrations normally included. Perhaps that was to hide what appear to be real-terms cuts in the energy budget, the enterprise budget and the tourism budget, which are hardly the mark of a Government with economic growth at its heart. Perhaps it was to hide the spending cuts that are emerging even as we speak this afternoon: the 6 per cent cut in next year's budget for affordable housing—which has been slammed not by us but by housing organisations and is hardly the sign of a Government that is prioritising housing need—or the real-terms cut in culture spending from a Government that often talks about its commitment to Scottish culture.
I am a bit puzzled: Mr Gray talks about a 6 per cent cut in the housing budget, but page 106 of "Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007" says that housing expenditure in 2008-09 will go up from £373 million to £446.7 million in a year, which I estimate to be an increase of about 18 per cent.
My point was that, if we had more time, we could argue about the calculations. However, that is not my calculation but the calculation and considered view of Shelter Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, Scottish Churches Housing Action and the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers.
More time would have been good because this budget is of enormous importance. It shapes the investment of almost £90 billion over the next three years. We should dwell on that figure for a moment because, this afternoon, we have heard yet again the broken record of complaint that, somehow, nationalist ministers have been short changed, robbed and mugged in the comprehensive spending review. Let us look at the facts.
In March, the SNP said that it expected to get £1.8 billion extra over the three years of the review period. Even by its own arithmetic, which I do not accept, the SNP received more than 99 per cent of that. On top of that, as Mr Swinney boasted today, it has access to £900 million more in end-year flexibility funding. Therefore, the SNP has almost exactly what it expected it would have to spend.
In fact, a week before the settlement, the nationalist spin doctors fanned out to tell the media that Scotland would get only a 1 per cent real-terms increase. Even by the SNP's own dubious arithmetic, it got a 1.4 per cent increase, so it seems that in the end the SNP got more than it expected. Therefore, that single transferable excuse for every failing will not do. The Government got almost exactly the budget that it expected when it made its promises to the voters. A senator once said:
"A billion here, a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money."
Well, £30 billion a year is real money and we have a real increase year on year, so those who voted for the SNP will believe that they have every right to expect it to deliver what it said it would.
The budget is one of broken promises. The week began with the tortuous confession from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that the true number of new police officers was not 1,000 but 500. In fact, the budget will recruit fewer additional police officers than either of the previous two Administrations recruited. Then, more quietly, in the erudite columns of The Times Educational Supplement, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning admitted that the First Minister's promise to have class sizes of 18 in primaries 1, 2 and 3 by 2011 also meant something different. Today, we hear that the promise might be delivered some time, somewhere, but that was not the pledge that the First Minister gave in the Parliament—to paraphrase Gladstone, a promise delayed is a promise denied.
We hear, too, that the promise to Scotland's students to write off their loans has been ditched. We always knew that that promise could not be afforded and, I suspect, the SNP always knew that, too. This morning, we had the sight of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, hours before he stood up in the Parliament, going to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as a supplicant, desperate for a signature on a deal and gambling everything on being able to come here today with a piece of paper—the Neville Chamberlain of Scottish politics—claiming a council tax freeze. However, as he admitted, he cannot claim that, because the 32 councils will make up their own minds.
The point is that Mr Swinney does not want councils simply to deliver his council tax freeze; he wants them to deliver all his other promises, too. He is trying to pass over to local authorities responsibility for the promises on class sizes, school buildings, free school meals, increased nursery provision, carers and respite care. The First Minister visited my constituency today to open a new primary school. He was welcome and he was right to come, because it is an excellent new school that was funded and built by a Labour council under a Labour-led Executive. The Government promised to match our school building and refurbishment programme brick for brick, but Mr Swinney cannot make that promise today. He has outsourced the promise to local authorities. Our programme was for 250 schools. Will he build 250 schools? He simply cannot say.
The Government should be clear: we will hold it accountable for its promises. It will not be able to hide behind local councils when promises are broken, any more than it will be allowed to hide behind the settlement. We will work hard to examine constructively how the budget can provide more skills opportunities for our young people as well as support for respite care and for renewing our town centres. We will work with others in the Parliament to examine constructively how we do that. However, we will hold the Government to account. We once called the SNP manifesto the longest betting slip in history. Those who placed their bet on the promises on police officers, class sizes, student grants or first-time buyer grants have today seen those promises fall at the first hurdle while others disappear into the mist or into the distance. The race has some way to go yet.
We are only seven minutes into the debate, but I congratulate Iain Gray on what was probably the best soundbite that we are likely to hear all afternoon, when he talked about the Neville Chamberlain of Scottish politics. I wonder what it is about representatives of East Lothian comparing SNP members with historical figures—it seems to be a bit of a habit these days.
Last week, I set out the process by which the Conservatives would scrutinise the budget. As I said last week, today has been the beginning, not the end of the process. We have set out seven key tests that we will use to assess the budget, in addition to an overall assessment. I repeat what I said last week: the Conservatives will not take a decision on whether to support or oppose the budget until we have concluded our scrutiny, the committees have reported and the Government has responded to recommendations. We will not take a decision until then and we will not announce a decision until then. We intend to make maximum use of the parliamentary process to scrutinise the budget and to consider where it can be improved.
We will seek to use the budget process specifically to establish where the resources are available to increase police recruitment beyond what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced on Monday. We will then challenge all parties in the Parliament—Government and Opposition—to support an increase in police recruitment for this year and future years. Police numbers is one issue; there might well be more.
I turn to the council tax freeze. After a decade of excessive council tax rises, taxpayers throughout Scotland will welcome a council tax freeze, if it can be delivered. Each year we have the ritual argument between central Government and local government. Councils say that their funding is inadequate and project terrifying cuts in services or extreme council tax rises and the Government boasts that the funding level is adequate. We need to take the political heat out of the process. The political colour of councils and the Government only adds to the complexity. It is time to move on; it is time for an independent assessment of the adequacy of this and every other local authority settlement to be built into the process. The appropriate vehicle for that might be the Accounts Commission. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth seemed to suggest that Pat Watters had attained the status of an independent arbiter, but I suspect that that is not quite how he should be viewed.
The point that I made in response to Derek Brownlee's question earlier was that I hoped that the approach that I took over the summer would ensure that we would avoid going through the ritual ping-pong arguments, which we used to have, for the period ahead.
I wish that I could be confident that in not one of the 32 local authorities in Scotland will we hear politicians talking about cuts in services or council tax increases. However, I simply do not think that it is realistic to expect that, concordat or no concordat.
The key point is that the political debate would be improved, scrutiny enhanced and accountability of politicians here and locally better served if we—and voters—had an independent assessment of the level of local authority funding that is required to maintain service levels at any given rate of council tax increase.
Earlier, David McLetchie touched on the overall funding settlement delivered by Westminster. As he said, it is not correct to describe this year's settlement as the worst since devolution. It is the lowest increase since devolution and, in that sense, it is undoubtedly a tight settlement, but in real terms it is the most generous since devolution. Labour has made much of the settlement being twice as generous as the budget received in the first year of devolution. That is correct in cash terms, but it makes no mention of the impact of inflation or the significant spending commitments that previous Executives have implemented and from which it is difficult, if not impossible, for any Government of any political persuasion to move on.
Beyond the issue of the numbers in the settlement, there is an issue about the process. The comprehensive spending review that we had this year had already been delayed by over a year. In relation to technical aspects of the settlement such as baseline or population figures, we must ask whether it is acceptable that the UK Government does not provide to the Scottish Government the final figures on the day of the pre-budget report. I do not think that that is a sound basis for a budget process, whoever is in government, north or south of the border. I note in passing the comment of the centre for public policy for regions that initially neither the Treasury nor the Scotland Office was able to supply the full details of how and why the baseline had been revised. That is simply not a suitable basis on which to run the devolved settlement.
Today marks the beginning of Parliament's scrutiny of the budget. It is the first time that we have embarked on such a process under a minority Government. In the weeks and months ahead, we will take the time to challenge and scrutinise what the budget contains. When we have reached the end of our scrutiny process—
You will vote for the budget.
When we have reached the end of that process and we know what recommendations committees have made and what, if anything, the Government intends to do in response, then, and only then, will we take a decision on how we will vote.
I read in one of the Sunday papers that the Liberal Democrats were playing hardball on the budget. They have already decided that they are not voting for the budget. That is not playing hardball; it is running off the pitch in tears before the game has even begun.
The process that the Conservative party has outlined is the most transparent and objective scrutiny process that has ever been undertaken by an Opposition party in Scotland. It might not make for lurid headlines or fit the wilder fantasies of other parties that make assumptions about the outcome of that scrutiny, but it is the right approach and the one that should be taken by a responsible Opposition.
On 9 February 2006, Derek Brownlee said:
"I admit that we consider the budget for a significant time already, but extending that time would be all to the good. Perhaps the nationalists will agree with me."—[Official Report, 9 February 2006; c 23196.]
I was pleased to hear Iain Gray paraphrase Gladstone and refer to Neville Chamberlain. Perhaps I can bring Mr Swinney right back up to Gordon Brown. When Mr Swinney was still a member of the Westminster Parliament, he would have observed a number of Gordon Brown's budgets. In recent days, many of us have admired the amount that Mr Swinney and his Government have learned from the new Labour play book of Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell. We can only admire the spin that they have got across in recent days because this is truly a budget of shady figures, policies dumped and commitments ignored and whose sums do not add up.
The SNP was oh-so clear in May: "Vote for us on police numbers and class sizes." Occasionally, the SNP was clear on the issue of independence. We are going to be free by 2017, we now understand. That does not rhyme as well as the ringing call to arms that Alex Neil used, which was that we would be free by '93. However, after today, the forecast will not prove to be correct, as today the SNP has confirmed that promises mean nothing, commitments can be ditched and its manifesto was not worth the paper that it was printed on.
We now enter a period of new relations with local government—or do we? This, again, takes us back to the future. Just as the enterprise network has gone back to being the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, so it is with local government. Instead of crude and universal capping under the Tories, we now have local decisions taken by ministerial directive. He who holds the purse strings will determine what services are delivered in every part of Scotland.
The SNP might think that it is tremendously clever and some in local government might think that all is rosy and that they have more decisions to take, but if there is no money, local services will be cut. That will not be the fault of local government—the blame will lie completely with Alex Salmond and his Government.
Not one local authority sets its council tax today. I would urge every local authority to read the fine print. Exactly what deal is available from John Swinney? I urge the Government to publish the figures. The concordat talks about freezing council tax rates in each local authority at 2007-08 levels. Note that it says, "in each local authority". We heard today from the minister that the rates would be determined in due course, but that commitment in the concordat is already determined.
We now have government by ministerial diktat and a centralisation of decision making, which is not what John Swinney talked about today.
We also note that, after weeks of the SNP saying that it would deliver on its manifesto, there will not be delivery on police numbers, class sizes or—as John Swinney said in complete honesty today—the promises that were made to students. What really annoys me is the SNP's Orwellian doublespeak. It keeps telling half truths on police and class sizes and it appears to believe what it says. That is quite a concerning sign in any Government at such an early stage.
What has happened to the recommendations of the Howat report, which was published with such fanfare by the Government earlier in the summer? Are those recommendations still in play? We should be told.
What of the United Kingdom settlement? What percentage of gross domestic product should be spent on the public sector? If it is less in this spending review, which is Jim Mather's position, why does the SNP argue that it needs more UK Government spending? That is a typical nationalist contradiction. The SNP says one thing to a business audience—"we want less spent on public services"—but says the opposite to the voluntary sector, the unions and public services.
Earlier, John Swinney said that he had more money, in real terms, than any previous Scottish Government had had. Presumably, then, we will hear no more of that particular argument.
The other side to the settlement is that the SNP's commitments are now up for negotiation. In a letter to Mr Swinney, COSLA describes a
"new category of manifesto commitments".
There is nothing that is not up for renegotiation now that the SNP is in office.
Let us turn to a number of important figures. As my colleague Jeremy Purvis highlighted earlier, the proportion of the budget for education and lifelong learning will fall from 7.89 to 7.5 per cent. The SNP in government is reducing the priority of education and lifelong learning—that is extraordinary. The further and higher education sectors asked for £168 million in this spending review—on the basis of the settlement, they have less than £40 million. The SNP said that it would spend £100 million on students, and it will now spend only £30 million. That has nothing to do with helping students and everything to do with proving that its sums do not add up.
Even on transport, the message is clear. The SNP is cutting public transport investment and increasing the amount that is spent on roads. The assessment is there—road spending is up, public transport spending is down; there is more money for motorways and less money for railways. It is no wonder that, with the help of Alex Salmond's little helpers, Annabel Goldie and Patrick Harvie, the Government dodged parliamentary scrutiny last week. Will the Tories back the budget, which reneges on the promise of 1,000 more police officers? Will the Greens back the budget that builds and pays for the M74?
We will scrutinise the budget, but today's statement has confirmed that the SNP's sums do not add up. It is a budget of shady figures, policies that have been dumped and commitments that have been ignored. The people of Scotland will see the reality of the budget, and they will pass a damning verdict.
We now move to the open debate—I ask for speeches of four minutes only. I call Brian Adam, to be followed by David Whitton.
Today is an historic day, not just because it is the day of the first SNP budget, but because of how the budget delivers for Scotland—and it does. It delivers a wealthier, fairer Scotland; a healthier Scotland; a smarter Scotland; a safer and stronger Scotland; and a greener Scotland. I find it difficult to understand why the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, having spent eight years in government and with all the skills that they must have developed in that time, have not offered any alternatives. They know that this is a zero-sum budget, they are complaining that the SNP is doing this, that and the other thing, but they are not telling us what they might do. [Interruption.]
Is Iain Gray going to tell us what he would do? I am happy to hear it.
I think you will find that if you had been listening you would have heard me indicate the areas in which we intend to do that, but as we discussed at some length last week, the proper place for that to happen is the committee—
We cannot hear.
I ask Mr Gray to speak to the microphone.
I am delighted to hear that you will make a positive contribution, because you are holding us to account—that is, quite rightly, your current role in life. I hope that you can support the budget or offer some realistic alternatives. Having taken £500 million out of the budget, it is now your job to tell us where you would make the cuts.
I remind members to speak through the chair.
I am delighted that Mr Swinney, on behalf of the Government, will make the national health service—in the words of Aneurin Bevan—free at the point of use. There is £97 million to phase out prescription charges, which I am delighted to say I am sure many members in the Labour group will find it helpful to vote for. In addition, we are getting a significant further £350 million for health improvements right across the board, particularly to tackle the scourge of alcohol abuse and the difficulties we have with that.
I am delighted that we are being serious about the issue and devoting another £85 million to address not just the binge culture but the long-term excess drinking that has a major impact on our health services.
Is Mr Adam aware of whether the legal responsibility and legally enforceable contract between patient and health board is still part of the budget, and whether that has been costed?
I am not responsible for the Government's decision, but I understand that a consultation is taking place on the matter. If Mrs MacDonald has views on that, I am sure that the Government will be delighted to hear them.
I welcome the £270 million for the waiting times initiative, which will deliver a turnaround time of less than 18 weeks. In addition, folk who find it difficult to access primary care in normal working hours will welcome the additional £30 million to increase flexibility in that area. In relation to the significant changes in screening for cervical cancer, the detection of serious diseases at an early stage, and particularly screening for MRSA before hospital admission, the £159 million in the next three years is extremely welcome.
Picture the scene. In Inverness in 1992, election fever was in the air and there was an "I was there" moment. Alex Neil, who is now known as the minister for "Newsnight Scotland", "Politics Now" and any other programme the SNP whips can get him on, declared to the mass media, "We'll be free in '93." To be fair to the then newly elected leader of the SNP, one Alex Salmond, he did look a little bit embarrassed.
Yesterday, however, Mr Salmond had a mad moment of his own. He declared, "I have a dream. It's 17"—2017, when he now expects Scotland to become independent. The economic strategy that he and his Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, Mr Swinney, had just announced is full of bold targets to increase Scotland's gross domestic product growth to the UK level by 2011 and to match the economic growth of small independent European states within a decade—by which time, Mr Salmond believes, Scotland will be one of those small independent European states.
That might be Mr Salmond's dream and the dream of others in the SNP, but it is not shared by more than 70 per cent of the electorate who are represented in the Parliament. Their preferred choice is devolution and a devolved Parliament that uses the levers of power that it currently enjoys to improve the lives of the people of Scotland.
Today, Mr Swinney had his chance to set out his first budget. To be fair, he got his excuses in early—that London did not give us enough money following the comprehensive spending review and that it was the worst settlement since devolution. Yet, as Mr Brownlee pointed out, Mr Swinney has almost twice as much to spend as the first Scottish Executive had in 1999. He has access to £30 billion, but he is still not satisfied. Indeed, Alex Neil, adopting another new role as the Oliver of the Scottish Parliament, now says, "Please, sir, I want more."
To be fair to Mr Swinney, he has been dropped in it by his boss. During the election campaign, the First Minister told a conference that the SNP would provide an additional 1,000 police officers. His mistake was to say that to the Scottish Police Federation conference, which was taking notes. We now know that there are to be only 500 additional police officers, that there are to be only 150 of them this year, and that the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan has its lowest intake for seven years. That is another broken promise from Alex Salmond and the SNP. Let us hear no rubbish from the SNP about inheriting plans. It has had plenty of time to begin implementing its own plans.
Next, the First Minister declared that the manifesto pledge to cut class sizes to 18 in primary 1 to primary 3 would be met by the end of the current session of Parliament. That surprised even his own Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, who told him that it could not be done. So did Scotland's local authorities, some of which are even controlled by the SNP. That is yet another broken promise by Alex Salmond and the SNP.
For Labour, the policy to improve the skills of the Scottish workforce is a crucial test of the SNP Administration. We want more youngsters to follow the successful modern apprenticeship programme. There were 34,000 youngsters on the scheme by the end of the previous session of Parliament. However, when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning appeared before the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee last week, she said that she has not set a target to increase the number. Today, when the SNP was asked specifically about money to support the creation of more modern apprenticeships to persuade more of our youngsters to take degree courses in the sciences such as chemistry, physics and maths, there was no answer, only silence.
As we have heard, there are also reductions in the budgets for energy, enterprise and tourism. To achieve the growth levels that Mr Swinney wants, we need a better educated and more skilful workforce, and more investment in that area. This budget does nothing to support those growth targets. While Mr Salmond daydreams about independence, Scotland's young people dream of getting a well-paid job. They want to know that the devolved Government is using its current powers to create the type of training places that will do that. They have been badly let down.
I must say how much I enjoyed John Swinney's statement, not just for what he said but for the sheer joy and enthusiasm with which he delivered it. It is fantastic to watch the cabinet secretary enjoying his job as much as he does.
I was particularly interested to hear the good news about the amounts of money that will go into railways and buses, and the important statements about public transport. I also welcome the serious commitment in respect of new housing supply for Scotland: we all accept that that is a serious issue in our constituencies. I put in a plug for the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's upcoming rural housing inquiry, which may well ask how much of the money will go to rural housing.
I will concentrate on the cabinet secretary's welcome announcement on business rates, which he says will be abolished in this session. The reduction will start in the next financial year. I cannot begin to express how important that move is for encouraging small business growth and small business start-up. It is particularly important for the high streets of Scotland's towns and villages. Every penny that is not handed over in rates is another penny available to be spent locally, where it belongs. That is important for the huge swathes of Scotland outside the main urban centres. While no one can deny that the cities are a huge economic driver, there is a desperate need to bolster small businesses outwith the cities. Rural Scotland needs jobs and businesses, and the tools to deliver them. There is no lack of ideas, but quite small amounts of money can make or break those businesses, so the importance of that policy should not be underestimated.
While I am on the issue of ideas, I was glad to see in the Government economic strategy a section on innovation. I was speaking at the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts conference in my constituency yesterday. While we are always in danger of embarking on what I call the tea towel history of Scotland, we know that we have a tremendous history of innovation. I enter the small caveat that many of the well-known names did not actually achieve their innovations in Scotland, although they were born here.
I recognise that innovation is not just about things, but about ideas and innovative delivery. The challenge is not innovation for innovation's sake. That results in a kind of permanent revolution, such as that which occurred over the past eight years—the pilots that never came in to land and the constant reinvention of ideas that never actually get rolled out. What we heard today was ambition, self-confidence and passion, which are essential to create economic growth for Scotland.
Members have received from the Policy Institute a small leaflet about the Faroe Islands. It talks about how culture, self-confidence and growth can engender economic success. That should say it all for Scotland. This Government is nothing if not ambitious. It is self-confident and it has passion. That is backed up by the two prizes for innovation and renewables that were discussed this afternoon. Innovation will make an enormous difference to the future of Scotland.
The commitment to increase the level of research and development activity, and knowledge transfer, is as important as the clear commitment that the enterprise network will focus on investment and innovation. I hope that rural Scotland will reap the benefit of what we have heard this afternoon. Underpinning all of that, however, is the recognition that some of the biggest rewards will be achievable only when we in Scotland can make all our decisions here. Business rates are at one level of the argument. We can and we are doing something about that. The other end of the argument is corporation tax. We need to be able to change that too, and that will not come without independence.
Given the SNP's much-trumpeted manifesto commitment to achieve higher emissions reductions, and given the importance of tackling climate change—on which I am sure we all agree—it is disappointing that the budget contains so few measures to reduce Scotland's carbon footprint.
The cabinet secretary made some of the right noises—a greener Scotland was the first of the strategic initiatives in his statement and he said that he wants to reduce emissions over the period to 2011—but he gave us no short-term targets, after his party abandoned the year-by-year targets that were set out in its manifesto. Rather than commit himself to reductions of more than 3 per cent per annum, which all commentators and experts say are needed in the next three years to make an impact on climate change, he simply restated long-term targets.
There are new initiatives: the cabinet secretary has introduced a climate change fund—although he has abandoned the sustainable development fund and the environmental justice fund. In effect, the money is just the same. The essence of the message from the minister is that we should wait for the climate change bill. That stance is profoundly unacceptable in comparison with the cross-departmental initiative that is needed now to make a go of tackling climate change.
The tripling of funding for community microgeneration is welcome, but the impact of that and some other measures is dwarfed by the additional tonnes of carbon emissions that will follow the removal of tolls on the Forth road bridge and the abandonment of the Edinburgh airport rail link.
The information that the cabinet secretary has provided on waste and flooding gives particular cause for concern. The consequentials from the substantial increases for flooding measures south of the border were not flagged up in the statement. The amount for flood prevention and coastal protection, which was £43.6 million last year, has fallen to £1.7 million. I understand that money for flood measures will go to local authorities, but passing that burden to local authorities means that money for flood measures will be set against a range of priorities, such as home care, education and roads, on which local government will have to decide. How will the money be distributed among authorities? Will it be done on the basis of need, or on another basis?
It is exactly the same with waste management: spending this year is £154 million if we include the strategic waste fund, whereas the amount in the cabinet secretary's budget that is set against waste initiatives is £41.1 million. If, as he suggests, local authorities are being made responsible for waste management, we must acknowledge that they are in different positions on recycling. Much of the money has been spent on a grant basis, so some authorities are much further back. If the cabinet secretary distributes the money on the basis of the grant-aided expenditure formula, some local authorities will be substantially disadvantaged in comparison with others. I do not think that the minister has thought any of that through.
For people who think that green issues and climate change are really important, the budget is long on rhetoric but low on substance. What did the Green representatives achieve in exchange for the bargain that they made with the SNP to provide the votes that made Alex Salmond First Minister? If they turn to page 89 of the budget document, they will see that spending on public transport projects is to halve. On page 90, they will see significant increases in road expenditure. Is that what they signed up for? That is what they are being delivered.
So, Parliament has fewer than 90 minutes to debate the budget statement and speeches are limited to just four minutes. That makes a mockery of the term "debate", as we do not have time to take interventions, which are the very stuff of the cut and thrust of good parliamentary debating.
Of course, we do not have time to debate the budget properly thanks to the Conservatives, who voted with the SNP last Thursday to deny Parliament the opportunity to have five debates on the budget from now until Christmas, in addition to limited scrutiny—[Interruption.] Members shout from the back because they do not like the truth—I am speaking the simple truth.
The member is wasting time.
We do not have time.
The Conservatives' position this year is very different from what Derek Brownlee said in the budget debate last year, as Tavish Scott mentioned. I remind members—it bears repeating—that Derek Brownlee said:
"Perhaps ministers … could spend more time being scrutinised as part of the process … extending that time would be all to the good. Perhaps the nationalists will agree with me."—[Official Report, 9 February 2006; c 23196.]
Of course, that was when the Conservatives were in opposition. Now, they have backroom deals with the SNP.
Sit down.
For the past eight years, Annabel Goldie's Conservatives have constantly criticised coalition parties for so-called backroom deals and grubby stitch-ups. That was when the coalition had a partnership agreement, which was detailed and fully published so that everyone could see it. How strange it is that the Tories are now engaged in backroom deals and grubby stitch-ups with the SNP.
Sit down.
It is strange because none of those deals and arrangements is in the public domain—
That is outrageous behaviour.
I had already asked Derek Brownlee to sit down, so I asked him again.
The point is that the Tories do not publish those agreements and they do not want their supporters across the country to be aware of them.
I do not mind political parties coming together to help each other out—that is the very stuff of party politics—but we should all be aware of what is going on. We should have openness and transparency—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that I am correct in saying that our standing orders require speeches to be relevant to the motion or issue being discussed. I suggest that taking up more than two minutes criticising the process and the conduct of other parties is not relevant.
If Mr Rumbles had been out of order I would have ruled him so.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I hope that I will be given additional time for that point of order.
We should have openness and transparency. Annabel Goldie's Conservatives have become the masters of double-dealing and backroom arrangements. Why else have they responded to the SNP's call and helped it out on 12 different occasions?
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No.
We have now reached the point at which the SNP no longer even bothers to lodge amendments to Opposition motions; SNP members just vote for the Tory amendment, as it saves them a lot of bother.
I will turn my attention to our two lonely Green MSPs at the back of the chamber. In the previous session, I lost count of how many times Liberal Democrat MSPs were attacked by the Greens despite our having the greenest credentials of any major party. It is now clear that, like the Conservatives, the two lonely Greens will vote through a budget that will deliver much more road building across Scotland, including the M74. Their position on John Swinney's statement is, basically, "For goodness' sake, we must not mention the roads."
At the weekend, Patrick Harvie was asked whether the Greens could in good conscience support a budget that fails to cut subsidies to aviation, proposes road-building schemes and fails to invest in cutting energy consumption in Scotland's homes and businesses. We can all answer that question for him. The answer is, "Yes they can," because it is obvious that Robin Harper and Patrick Harvie will vote for this non-environmentalist budget.
Mr Rumbles, you must wind up.
The Green party is obviously well past its sell-by date, and if the Greens vote for this budget voters will surely make that clear to them at the very next opportunity.
I have been waiting for this.
After listening to Mike Rumbles and Des McNulty, members would be forgiven for thinking that the Greens had committed to supporting the budget, but we did not give that commitment during the negotiations after the election and I will certainly give no such commitment today. I point out to Mr Rumbles—I need not have listened to his speech as I have read his most recent and silliest press release about me—that if the Government was, for example, to scrap the M74 northern extension, it would be hugely welcomed. As far as I am concerned, that would make the budget a great deal greener than any budget that any Liberal Democrat ever voted for.
The Greens are still going to vote for this budget.
Mr Rumbles is determined to suggest that I will still vote for the budget. I am sorry to disappoint him.
In looking at the budget, I must ask myself which of the measures that it contains will take Scotland towards becoming a more sustainable society. Two of the three measures that Mr Rumbles mentioned will. The first is the cutting of the subsidy to the aviation industry. The air route development fund was always predicated on the myth that it would cut the number of direct flights in the UK. It has not, so we should scrap it and I am glad that that will happen, although it will take some time to come about.
I am also glad that there are moves to improve energy efficiency and to increase the fund for microrenewables, which so often ran dry under the previous Administration. I welcome the provision for a climate challenge fund and a few other measures, such as the commitments to making agriculture, housing and energy use lower-carbon areas of the economy.
However, all that is pretty small beer—although it is a step or two in the right direction compared with the previous lot. Spending on measures to tackle climate change still accounts for less than a third of spending on motorways. I will hear no lectures on commitments to motorway building from Des McNulty or any other member of the previous Administration. The commitment on climate change is barely more than the Government spends on administration.
I echo some of the comments that Jackie Baillie made on housing. On the surface, there will be modest increases in the housing budget over the full three years of the spending review period—most of us understand that the first year is bound to be tighter. However, it is already being made clear that in the first year there will be a 6 per cent cut in the housing budget and there is no specific commitment on social rented housing. The organisations that Jackie Baillie cited say that the budget will fail spectacularly to provide the 30,000 new rented homes by 2011 for which they have been campaigning. It is also important to reflect on the fact that increases in the housing budget in subsequent years will not be enough to keep up with land prices.
Parties will always have a go at one another in the chamber over promises that have been made and the reality of minority Government. The SNP could have introduced a budget that simply indulged its whims, within the limits of this year's settlement from the UK Government. Such a budget would have been thrown out of Parliament, but there is enough in the budget to suggest that the Government knows that it needs to convince others in order to gain their support. However, as we look at the draft budget today, the reality is that the Government will have much work to do during the budget's progress through Parliament if it wants to secure anyone's support.
It is with great pleasure that I welcome the new Scottish Government's first budget. The announcements that it contains will be welcomed by communities all across Scotland, but I hope that members will forgive me for concentrating on my constituency and on why the budget is particularly good for Dundee.
I want to concentrate on three key areas. First, my constituents will be delighted to hear the Government's proposals to freeze the council tax at last year's level. The agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that was signed today is historic. Since it was introduced, the council tax in Dundee has risen by an average of £50 a year and has more than doubled. That increase has not been replicated in people's incomes or in our older people's pensions. With one of the highest council tax rates in Scotland, Dundonians will be particularly supportive of John Swinney's determination that the council tax be held at last year's level until we can get rid of it altogether. That will be a real-terms reduction that will provide relief to pensioners and hard-working families in Dundee and throughout Scotland.
The second point that I would like to highlight is the cabinet secretary's continued funding for Scotland's cities, by rolling up the cities growth fund, which was due to end this year. That money will allow Dundee to finish the infrastructure for the central waterfront project that is so important to my city. I was one of the councillors who were involved in agreeing to that visionary use of the cities growth fund back in 2003, so it is particularly close to my heart. The waterfront project will deliver a higher quality of life and it will improve our city's image. It will also provide new high-quality development opportunities to support economic initiatives. The economic potential of Dundee will always be held back unless the problem of our waterfront is resolved and the opportunity that it offers is realised in a visionary manner. The central waterfront project has that vision and will result in a step change not only for Dundee but for the whole city region. As I said, the allocation of money will allow for the completion of work on infrastructure. Dundee City Council is confident that the rest of the central waterfront master plan can be self-financing as our vision is realised.
The announcement of investment will be of equal importance to Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Stirling, as well as to the greater city regions that they serve.
I said that I would concentrate on my constituency and on why the budget is particularly good news for Dundee. However, the inclusion of additional funding to enhance capacity in Dundee to support the life sciences is good news not only for Dundee—it will be welcomed by the life sciences sector across Scotland. That sector consistently punches above its weight internationally.
The University of Dundee's vision for the Scottish institute for life sciences—or SCILS—is for a new centre of excellence that is equipped and managed to the highest international standards. SCILS will attract outstanding scientists to Scotland and train the most promising young researchers to conduct world-leading biomedical research, and it will translate the outputs into new medical and commercial opportunities.
I am pleased that proposals to site the Scottish institute for life sciences in Dundee have cross-party support. We should recognise the hard work of Sir Philip Cohen in pressing the case and winning the support of not only the current First Minister but the previous First Minister. I am delighted that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning have been able to include extra funding for life sciences in this first SNP budget.
I have focused on just three areas of the budget statement that are particularly good news for Dundee, but there are many more areas on which I could have focused. This budget is not just for Dundee but will be welcomed across Scotland. It is a historic statement that shows the implementation of the joined-up approach that previous Administrations merely talked about. The deal that is available to local government goes much further than the headline council tax freeze: it represents a sea change in the relationship between central and local government that will have a positive impact for years to come.
I congratulate Pat Watters and Councillor Neil Fletcher on putting the interests of local government above personal party-political interests.
I think it is fair to say that, for all of us, a debate on the budget can be challenging. The figures can be difficult to follow and understand. It is critical that fuller scrutiny of the budget takes place as it goes through its committee stages.
It is also difficult to find out how the budget matches what was done by the Executive in the past so that we can track what has happened to money. I would hate to suggest that that is because this Executive does not want to make such a comparison available and transparent to everybody.
The budget is challenging for those who need it the most. In the past, we have considered gender proofing it; we have also to consider other issues to do with equality, so we need transparency from the Executive. I fear, again, that the Executive will be overclaiming and underdelivering with this budget, as with so much else.
The Labour Party supports a social contract for economic growth and shared prosperity. We can dispute the capacity of the current Executive to work in partnership with the Labour Government at Westminster to sustain economic growth. There is clear confusion over how the Executive will ensure that all Scots benefit and that difficult local challenges are properly recognised.
I want to focus on housing, the regeneration of communities, and deprivation. We have already heard what housing organisations have said about the budget. As Patrick Harvie said, we will have to drill further into the claims that are being made about the housing budget. If there is a crisis, as is claimed by the SNP, does the budget match up to it?
A very simple question was asked earlier, about the £2,000 first-time buyers grant. We heard that it would be subject to consultation, but that does not answer the question whether the grant has been budgeted for. We are told that there is money to roll out free school meals, subject to the result of the pilot project. Will the £2,000 first-time buyers grant be subject to further consideration, as was suggested by the minister who is responsible for housing? We have not heard. The danger is that people will feel doubt—there seems to be evidence to back up that feeling—when the Executive says that it cannot do things because others in Parliament will not support it. The SNP should put the issues before Parliament so that we can at least investigate them; otherwise, our view will be confirmed that the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, like the claims that have been made about student debt, was a ploy to secure votes and not a pledge to deliver action.
We need to know about the balance of spending in housing—there is dispute over the headline figure—and we need to know how much will be spent on social rented housing and the number of new houses that will be built by the end of the third year of the review, because that will be critical in meeting the homelessness target. Will that target be met? We have said that local government will be responsible for dealing with homelessness, but local government was already anxious about the matter when the legislation was going through Parliament. What will the Government do if local government says that the target is simply unachievable?
I wanted to raise a number of issues, but I will end by flagging up the issue of the areas that have not been ring fenced that have been rolled up into the settlement. It is significant, for example, that the private sector grant will remain ring fenced; perhaps that is because when it lost its ring-fenced status it virtually disappeared from local government budgets. After all, we understand the pressures that authorities are under.
We realise that the voluntary sector can tackle issues such as violence against women better than local government can because it can define and then meet needs. We seek reassurance that funding of those vulnerable groups will be protected, because they are crucial. I understand that there are pressures on local government and we would certainly find it unacceptable were authorities to be given funds that were not ring fenced, only for the blame to be left at their door when services were not delivered.
We need reassurance that local vulnerable groups and communities will not suffer from budgetary sleight of hand at Scottish Government level. I also want to know that the Government's compact with local government will be real and that if authorities say they cannot deliver something they will be given the funding to do so.
I have no doubt that the majority of neutral observers will perceive this budget rightly not only as a personal triumph for John Swinney but as a significant milestone for the SNP Government.
Only a few short weeks ago, the Government was presented with what most members would in their heart of hearts agree was a less-than-generous settlement from the United Kingdom Treasury. Despite that, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has delivered responsibly and effectively for Scotland.
Of course, members will be aware that this is all a far cry from the nonsense that was spouted during the election campaign, during which some people portrayed an SNP victory as being likely to cost each Scottish family £5,000 a year, not including the swingeing council tax increases that would have to be made in the short term. For example, in Glasgow, under the heading
"SNP and Liberal Democrat Council Tax Increase Shock"
Labour Party leaflets announced that
"SNP spending plans would require a 16.6% increase in Glasgow Council Tax levels"
and
"The SNP and Liberal Democrats must be the only people in Glasgow who think that local people don't pay enough tax. Their spending plans would force hard-working Glaswegians to pay hundreds of pounds more and not improve a single local service".
In reality, the cabinet secretary's work with our partners in local government has produced a settlement for our councils that will allow service improvements to be made without the huge council tax rises that we were accused of planning to impose. One hopes only that such scaremongering election rhetoric from irresponsible members of Opposition parties will be tempered in the future.
Surely the obvious point is that, if the SNP had not ditched all its promises, what the member has highlighted would have come true.
We have not ditched our promises. Clearly Andy Kerr was not listening to the cabinet secretary's statement.
There is much in the budget that will be welcomed throughout Scotland. For example, there will be an additional £37 million for ferry services, £51 million for our fire services, £97 million to phase out prescription charges, and a doubling of the international aid budget over three years. Moreover, the 20 per cent increase in capital investment in higher education will maintain and strengthen Scotland's competitive edge, which will be vital to our future economic prosperity.
Regeneration will also benefit to the tune of £435 million, which will ensure investment in some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities.
The SNP is determined to tackle drugs misuse and to enhance rehabilitation. With £94 million to spend over three years, I have no doubt that we will make considerable headway in addressing that challenge in our communities. Alcohol misuse is also a scourge. As Brian Adam pointed out, the £85 million that is devoted to reducing the harm that is inflicted by alcohol misuse—in a health improvement package that amounts to £350 million in new money—will allow the Government to tackle a problem that is endemic in much of Scotland.
Decent housing is a fundamental right, so I am delighted that £1.47 billion will be invested in it over three years, with a 27 per cent increase from 2008-09 to 2010-11.
The third sector's crucial importance to the well-being of Scotland is recognised with a record £63 million development programme and a £30 million investment fund that will help voluntary organisations to invest in people and assets through business development to ensure sustainability.
Of course, with independence the SNP could do much more. That is why it is pleasing to see that my predecessor as MSP for Cunninghame North now supports an independence referendum—I look forward to his former colleagues doing likewise today.
Earlier this year, Malcolm Webb, who is chief executive of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, pointed out that there are still 26 billion barrels of oil left in the North Sea. To put it simply, that is 5,000 barrels for every man, woman and child in Scotland. With prices likely to remain near $100 a barrel, the mind boggles at what Scotland could do with that kind of financial muscle.
It is an excellent budget. What else could we expect from a party that puts Scotland first, last and always and which has so much faith in the Scottish people?
Students have certainly come last with the budget, and Kenny Gibson was clearly not listening when we heard the cabinet secretary admit that he was ditching the student debt pledge. The story of today's budget is one of students betrayed and universities badly let down. Perhaps we were expecting the betrayal of students, but the settlement that universities received today will have come as a disappointing shock to them.
The SNP has dumped its policy on graduate debt, and universities, which asked for £168 million extra, are getting only £30 million. As Universities Scotland says, that is inconsistent with the Government's stated aspirations for growing a knowledge economy. Students were told that the SNP would "dump the debt monster". That was the campaign slogan, and I even have a picture of Nicola Sturgeon at a freshers fair with the debt monster—a guy in a gorilla suit—looking for student votes. Now, however, we know that the SNP is not dumping the debt monster; it is dumping its promise.
What started off with Alex Salmond pledging to meet the student loan repayments of Scotland-based students, and with the SNP responding to questions on the policy by telling us again and again on television and in newspapers that it was affordable, then moved on to a pledge, in "Reporting on 100 Days: Moving Scotland forward", to draft legislation to abolish the debt.
Will Richard Baker give way?
No.
However, that legislation never appeared, and now we know why—because the SNP has unceremoniously and cynically ditched the policy. It is shameful for SNP members to have insisted until they were blue in the face that they would pay off those loans and then—despite the fact that some students will have voted for them on that basis—to abandon the pledge when in government. That is no way to treat students—or anyone. It would be tempting to use unparliamentary language, Presiding Officer, but it is clear that students will feel betrayed because that promise has been broken.
All that we hear is the excuse that this is a tight settlement. However, it is a tight settlement that the Government knew was coming—it was predicted before the election—and which the independent centre for public policy research says is fair. The SNP says that it would not get legislation through, but the policy does not require legislation beyond the budget bill, and the Government is to introduce a bill on an independence referendum in the face of opposition.
Will Richard Baker give way?
No.
The SNP's sums do not add up. If it was not going to cost £2 billion to scrap loans, why has the Government not introduced a proposal for the Parliament to debate, or did the SNP never really have any intention of implementing such a policy?
Will Richard Baker give way?
I am not going to give way. I have only four minutes, and I think that Mr Doris should sit down.
To rub salt in the wounds—
Will Richard Baker give way?
Order, Mr Doris. Sit down.
To rub salt in the wounds, as Tavish Scott said, the SNP is delivering only half of what it said it would deliver in other areas of student finance. Our Executive was straight with students, in stark contrast to the current Administration, which pulled the wool over their eyes. We increased student bursaries year on year, massively beyond inflation, but there is no equivalent pledge in the SNP budget.
Earlier this week, the SNP talked of lofty aspirations for the role of universities and colleges in growing our economy, but when universities asked for £168 million extra the Government awarded them only £30 million. Sir Muir Russell, the chair of Universities Scotland, says that the settlement is a disappointing response, and he is concerned that it could weaken the competitive position of Scottish universities relative to universities in England. There was an 18 per cent increase for universities in the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition's spending review. We delivered on our pledges and put money behind what we said we were going to do. The actions of the current Government do not match its words on university funding and graduate debt.
The cabinet secretary said that the budget heralds a new era of optimism, opportunity and delivery, but for universities it is no more than confirmation that they have been let down, and for students it is confirmation that they have been conned. The Government should be ashamed.
We now move to the wind-up speeches. I apologise to those members whom I was not able to call.
As with any budget, some measures outlined by the cabinet secretary will command broad support—as evidenced by some of the comments that members have made.
However, the devil is in the detail. Although I, too, welcome the confirmation that, following representations from me and Tavish Scott, the air discount scheme will continue, it is not clear whether the Government is committed to funding the in-year allocation to Orkney Islands Council to maintain its ferry and air services and whether it is committed in the longer term to the next generation of internal transport requirements.
Most speeches have focused on the bigger picture. Mr Swinney and the SNP spin doctors have been telling everyone that the broken promises do not matter. All that matters, they say, is what happens to council tax. I am reminded of a magician's trick, when the magician waves their right hand in the air, grabs everyone's attention and gets them to focus on the wonder of what they have in their right hand. John Swinney is not worried if people look closely at his proposed council tax freeze for long enough—until next February, for example—because it, too, will disappear. Meanwhile, with his left hand, the Great Soprendo systematically discards one promise after another. However, the illusion has failed; people have already noticed the deception.
The build-up to today had undoubtedly been excellent political theatre. As Iain Gray said, each week, each debate and each question time, we were told, "Just you wait until 14 November. Wait until the budget is announced. Then you'll see." Today, we have seen that, in promising everything to everybody, the SNP never had any intention of delivering on its promises.
Today has provided a useful insight into the goings on in the Cabinet over recent weeks. There has been tension and brinkmanship, and there have been crisis talks—and not only about who would carry the First Minister's bags on the trip to Sri Lanka.
I can imagine the budget discussions—it would be like one of those winner-takes-all balloon debates. John Swinney, desperate to get his council tax freeze to fly, has been steadily emptying his colleagues over the side of the basket to lighten the financial load.
Fiona Hyslop was first over the side. Ms Hyslop, desperately clinging to her class-size commitment and nursery teacher promise, has been forced overboard, and her "ditch the student debt" placards followed her over the side.
Kenny MacAskill was next for the long walk off a short plank. In a futile bid to remain in the basket, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took to the airwaves earlier in the week. In the space of 12 hours, he had reduced the commitment to extra police officers from 1,000 to 500, and then to no guarantee of any extra police officers at all. Mr Swinney was obviously not impressed, and over Kenny MacAskill went as part of the pre-budget clearing of the decks.
I see that Mr Mather has escaped the drop. Cuts in business rates and additional investment in renewables have been spared—as has Mr Mather. Investment in innovation is welcome. I am happy to acknowledge that that is good news, and to pay tribute to Mr Mather's obvious powers of self-preservation. That said, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth felt that Mr Mather, having handed up the centralisation of the enterprise networks and VisitScotland, had already done enough.
There have been many historical references, to Gladstone, to Chamberlain and to Aneurin Bevan. Brian Adam said that this is an historic day. He is right. It will come to be seen as the day on which the SNP's bluster and spin started to unravel.
To avoid confusion, I make it clear that neither I nor my Conservative colleagues will vote for the budget proposals that have been set out today. I make that clear so that members all understand both how important the budget process is and that we should get into it as early as possible. It is, therefore, ironic that so many of my Labour Party and Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Parliament have taken the opportunity to complain yet again—some taking up all the time available to them—that they have not been given enough time to debate the budget proposals. Let us debate the budget proposals and stop complaining about a lack of opportunity so to do.
I want to talk about the issues that have been raised today and about what can be achieved. The proposals on microrenewables and home energy efficiency are interesting, but I want to know much more. The proposals for reductions in the business rate for small businesses are extremely important, but I want to know how much more quickly those reductions can be achieved. The proposals on affordable housing are well and good and a great deal of money has been allocated, but I want to know how more private money can be levered in as a result of public expenditure.
Will the member give way?
I suggest that the member press his request-to-speak button. Perhaps he can have his own speech.
No, he cannot, Mr Johnstone.
I want to know—sooner rather than later—how many new police officers there will be. I want to know how robust the proposals for council funding are and whether the cabinet secretary will consider the independent assessment that the Conservatives proposed today. I welcome the money that has been allocated to drug misuse and rehabilitation, but I want to know how it will be delivered and what effect it is expected to have.
I am disappointed by some members' approach to the budget process, which is all about grandstanding and not about how we deliver a budget. The Conservatives have a deal that they need to stick to: it is a deal with the taxpayers of Scotland. It is our duty to ensure that the budget that the Parliament approves is the property of the Parliament and delivers for the Scottish people. Therefore, the Conservatives will not stand up in the Parliament time and time again to complain about the process and throw all the toys out of the pram. We want to debate the issues in the Parliament and in parliamentary committees. We want to put together a budget that will deliver for Scotland.
Members on the Government's front bench have not brought forward proposals that will find support in the Parliament, but they have time to do so. We need to see the details and we need to know when and how measures will be delivered. We need to know how the Government will deliver a budget for the whole of Scotland.
There is a cruel deception at the heart of the Government and its budget. In the lead-up to the elections in May, Scottish National Party members knowingly made promises that they knew fine well they could not keep. Today, as many members said, some of those chickens have come home to roost.
"Knowingly" is a good word, which I think that members used when talking about Mr Swinney's discussions with COSLA. Not only did the SNP knowingly propose policies in its manifesto that it could not keep, but—we fast forward to weeks later—Mr Swinney had discussions with COSLA about a council tax freeze in the full knowledge that his manifesto commitments would be ditched in favour of a commitment to a freeze. Everything else would go to save one pledge. Of course, the pledge has not been saved. I suspect that as local authorities examine the detail of the offer they might come to a different view.
Liam McArthur used a good analogy when he talked about a balloon—a hot-air balloon, of course. During the election campaign the balloon flew across Scotland, filled with hot air from the people who are now on the Government front benches. Of course, the basket below was so heavily weighed down with manifesto pledges on class sizes, police officers, nursery places and student debt that it barely got off the ground. However, as we know, the balloon got off the ground and soared above Scotland for a short time, but it has begun to deflate and lose height.
As the balloon flies over our primary schools, out goes the pledge on class sizes—dumped on the parents and pupils of Scotland. The pledge that the First Minister said would be delivered by 2011 has become a contortion of words in the COSLA agreement. As the balloon flies over our universities, the SNP dumps on the students of Scotland who voted for the SNP in numbers on the basis of a pledge that the party knew it could not deliver.
What happens when the balloon flies over Peebles? That is where, in the run-up to the election campaign, the First Minister made his pledge on police numbers in front of police officers who, I have to say, are good at taking notes. That pledge is also dumped—on Scottish communities that expected better of the SNP. The balloon may still be floating, but the hot air is escaping fast.
Let us look at the SNP's wording on schools. We go from the pledge on class sizes to the situation in 2011 being one of "changing demographic trends", "accommodation pressures", implementation varying across local authorities "depending on local circumstances", and local government being
"expected to show year on year progress".
When he sums up the debate, I ask Mr Swinney whether he agrees that, in his book, progress is one local authority with one class where the class size is below 18. I know about the discussions that he has been having with COSLA—he knows about them, too. How will the Government measure progress?
If the problem is to be solved by demographic trends and fewer children, what about the pupils of Edinburgh or West Lothian, where the demographic trends show an increase in the number of young people?
Does Mr Kerr accept that there is anything positive about the budget, such as the doubling of the international development budget or the 50 per cent increase in the equality budget?
Of course I accept that the budget has good aspects, but I return to the fundamental point, which is that Mr Gibson's party told the electorate of Scotland what it would deliver and made promises that it knew it could not deliver. That is what I charge the SNP Government with. That cruel deception is at the heart of the Government, and, as other members have said, it is our job and responsibility as the Opposition to describe that deception to the Scottish people. That is what we will do.
I will talk a wee bit about the offer to local government. Yesterday, it was described as the "best outcome" for local government. Obviously, councils will say that if they are offered £10.7 billion and then get £11.1 billion. However, the offer is not a good one. It barely covers the current cost of services, never mind the cost of the council tax freeze and inflation. We will see whether it turns out to be a good deal.
When we say that the SNP could have done better, Labour Party members join a long list: Universities Scotland, Shelter Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland, Scottish Churches Housing Action, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, local authority chief housing officers and the churches.
At the heart of Government, we have an actuary, a lawyer and an economist. We might expect their combined skills to deliver accuracy, but we have no precision. The budget would not hold up under scrutiny in any court in the land.
Last week, Bruce Crawford may have made the first mistake of the parliamentary session. He should have got us to vote for the Labour motion to have more debates in the Parliament. We have won the debate today, hands down. [Interruption.]
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Order.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I say to my dear friend the member for Perth—
I am sorry, Mr Swinney, but we have a point of order.
Will you take a motion without notice, Presiding Officer?
No. The Parliamentary Bureau has already considered the matter. A parliamentary resolution has been made.
Thank goodness for that, Presiding Officer.
I say to my dear friend Roseanna Cunningham that I am glad that I have been able to display "joy and enthusiasm" today. It has not always been so over the past few weeks while I have been getting the budget together. I am glad to be in the chamber today and that we can now promote the budget to Parliament.
I turn to Iain Gray's point about our removal of a real-terms spending table. He will find it on page 148 of the document, in the usual way. He should not be surprised by that. I know that members have a lot of detail to come to terms with.
Tavish Scott spoke about changes to the transport budgets. He obviously has a lot of knowledge of transport issues, having been the Minister for Transport, but I gently point out to him that over the next three years, the Government will spend more than £2 billion on transport, which is four times what was spent by the Government of which he was a member between 2003 and 2006. If that is not progress, I do not know what is.
Pauline McNeill asked me about funding for community safety. My answer is similar to one that I gave other members: a great number of individual budget lines have been transferred into the local authority budget to ensure that local service delivery can be joined up by people who are responsible for and aware of local circumstances. That work will be monitored and managed by an outcome agreement with local authorities, which is a step forward for the way in which we undertake governance in Scotland.
Will John Swinney authorise Audit Scotland to carry on auditing under the previous practice that allowed us, through grant-aided expenditure, to identify the assumptions that the Government makes about the processing of budget lines, such as those for schools and road building? Will Audit Scotland be able to carry out proper, clear and transparent auditing under the new agreements?
I have already made available to Audit Scotland the whole performance management framework for the new arrangements. I understand that Audit Scotland will be supportive and is interested in being involved in that management area. I am happy about that, as it is a good step forward. I point out to Jeremy Purvis that, as everybody knows, GAE is not a particularly scientific measure of all the issues to do with the distribution of funding and resources to local authorities, but I am happy about that level of scrutiny by Audit Scotland.
Des McNulty made a number of points about the carbon footprint of our proposals. He mentioned the cancellation of the Edinburgh airport rail link project, but the redesigned project is a much more efficient and effective use of resources, and will have a much greater impact on carbon emissions, than the expensive and grandiose Edinburgh airport rail link that he supported. We will use our resources much more effectively in that respect.
Mike Rumbles made a number of points about there not being enough time to scrutinise the budget. However, I look at my diary for the next few weeks and I see that I will be in front of a number of parliamentary committees to discuss it. That is the right and proper level of parliamentary scrutiny.
What about in the chamber?
Mr Rumbles will have to watch himself: he is getting far too excited. The committees are the proper place for that scrutiny to take place and, as I confirmed to the convener of the Health and Sport Committee, ministers are more than happy to be involved in committees' scrutiny of the budget.
I will address the points that Richard Baker made on the universities settlement. In a tight spending review settlement, we are delivering a capital allocation to universities and further education colleges beyond what was asked for. We are doing that because we recognise the importance of investing in facilities to ensure that we keep up to date with developments in the sector.
The minister is just going into his last minute.
There is enormous pressure on resource budgets, and we have taken a step to guarantee that universities are provided with the appropriate level of funding. It is rich for Richard Baker to express concerns about funding for students when he was prepared to introduce back-end tuition fees for the students of Scotland. I will take no lessons from him on that point.
This budget gives the people of Scotland the opportunity to see in action a Government that is prepared to be ambitious for our country and to deliver on the aspirations, hopes and aims of the people of Scotland. I am confident that the budget will command their attention, support and endorsement. Others will have to come to terms with that success in the weeks to come.