Official Report 565KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is stage 2 consideration of the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill. Members should have a copy of the bill, the marshalled list and the list of groupings, which are also available on the Scottish Parliament’s website.
Only the Scottish Government can lodge amendments to budget bills, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has lodged several stage 2 amendments for the committee’s consideration. The list of groupings sets out the order in which the amendments will be debated. Members who wish to speak in any of the debates should indicate that by catching my eye or the attention of the clerk.
We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. Under standing orders, her officials who are present are unable to participate in formal stage 2 proceedings.
I move straight to the bill.
Section 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1—The Scottish Administration
Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5 and 9.
The six amendments in this group will update the budget bill to give effect to the additional spend that I communicated to the committee in my letter on 12 February. Since the draft budget was published, engagement has been undertaken to strengthen the overall budget package, respond to stakeholder priorities and secure the parliamentary support that will be required for the budget’s passage. That engagement includes the formal budget agreement that was reached with the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
Taken together, amendments 1 to 5 will amend schedule 1 to increase the maximum spend across three ministerial portfolios and ensure that the authorised spending purposes cover all proposed spending priorities. That will authorise a combined total of almost £30 million in additional funding for the finance and local government portfolio, the transport portfolio and the Deputy First Minister, economy and Gaelic portfolio.
With regard to the finance and local government portfolio, amendment 1 will increase the allocation to the local government settlement for social care by £20 million, which local authorities can put towards funding the real living wage for the adult and childcare sectors.
For transport, amendment 2 will increase the portfolio allocation by £4.3 million to provide funding for a rail fare freeze for 2026-27, as communicated by the First Minister on 12 February.
For the Deputy First Minister, economy and Gaelic portfolio, amendment 3 will increase the allocation by £5.33 million for the investing in communities fund. To that end, amendment 4 will extend the portfolio’s authorised spending purposes to include expenditure on community-led regeneration.
To take account of that additional authorised spend, amendment 5 will amend schedule 1 to increase the total amount of resources that the Scottish Administration is authorised to use. As a result, amendment 9 amends section 4 to increase the Scottish Administration’s overall cash authorisation to take account of the almost £30 million of additional funding that is being allocated. Accordingly, I urge members to support amendment 1 and others in the group.
I move amendment 1.
I call Craig Hoy.
I will come in at the end.
Sorry?
I will come in at the end, after the cabinet secretary.
No, you need to come in now, before the cabinet secretary winds up.
Looking at these amendments, I would say, as I said in the chamber last week, that we are very unhappy with the budget in its totality. It is hard to argue against these measures, cabinet secretary, but the risk that you are now running in many respects—for example, in relation to social care—is that, although you have found additional money at this stage in the budget process, it is rather like the burglar who robbed you blind two years ago returning to offer you some of your goods back and expecting you to be grateful.
The ultimate issue in relation to the budget—I am thinking of rates relief, for example—is that this is, in many respects, too little, too late. If we look at this year’s local government settlement, although we welcome additional funding for social care, which will deal with some of the crises that we are seeing in health and social care partnerships and integration joint boards, we think that it will be insufficient to deal with the challenge that councils face in delivering social care. As we have just been discussing in relation to preventative spend, many of the problems that we are seeing throughout, say, the health service, which also faces issues in this budget, are being made worse by the crisis in social care. We question whether the prioritisation in the budget is sufficient.
Overall, I repeat what I said last week in the chamber. We do not object to these individual measures, but the budget in its totality still does not pursue the right priorities for Scotland, and it contains misplaced priorities.
I completely agree with my colleague’s comments. Aside from the party politics, I think that there is a wider issue here that relates to the budget scrutiny that we have undertaken. Obviously, the Government makes its choices, as it is entirely entitled to do, and sets out its priorities, but the question is what has been deprioritised. We, as a committee, do not feel that we are getting sufficient information about the reasons for certain priorities being chosen and the evidence supporting such decisions, but, more important, about those areas where there is deprioritisation.
I ask the cabinet secretary to be mindful of that. As we said in the debate in Parliament last week, those points are being put to us by our senior analysts in Scotland, and I would be grateful for her reflections on them.
As no other colleagues wish to speak, I call the cabinet secretary to wind up.
First, on Liz Smith’s point, there will always be areas where we can get into some of the detail of the improvement that we have made in the flow of information, the choices that are made and the reasons that lie behind those choices. I will reflect on what Liz Smith has said, as I will always do. However, the choices that we have made are in line with our four key Government priorities, and it is for others to make other choices as they see fit.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Yes, of course.
I understand what the cabinet secretary has said, and it is, of course, for the Government to set out its priorities, even though we might disagree with them. However—and this is the wider point that is being made to us by the economic analysts—the Scottish Government has four mantras, which include tackling child poverty and ensuring economic growth, but we do not feel that there is enough detail behind specific policy priorities to convince us that a particular choice of outcome represents a better spend of public money than any other choice. The opportunity cost of that, obviously, is that some priorities are deprioritised, and it is that piece of economic analysis that I think people want to see.
I take the point. However, I refer the member and the committee to the array of other information that predates and sits alongside the budget or will come after it. For example, the material that was published in June in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan is critical. It is absolutely right that we are held to account for the delivery of that plan, but it sets out a very ambitious programme of transformation and efficiency that is absolutely going to reduce costs. I think that, in many ways, that is what you are getting at—what is the other side of the envelope?
I do not want to labour the point, but it is important not just for the budget that we are discussing but for future budgets. We have seen quite a lot of fiscal events being delayed for one reason or another, and it tends to be that we get some of these things after—you cited June, which will be in the new session of Parliament—we are asked to consider the details of a specific budget. That is the frustration.
I get that, but I point to the other material that is produced, such as the impact assessments, as well as the things that are to come. If we take child poverty as an example, the delivery plan that Shirley-Anne Somerville will publish soon will contain a lot of the detail on the new areas and the evidence base that those will help us to get towards the target that we have all agreed on. I am merely pointing out that there is an array of other information that predates the budget or will come after it. As ever, however, I will absolutely reflect on what the committee is saying about the information that is provided.
Craig Hoy said that it would be hard to argue against the measures that I have set out. I would have hoped that it would be even harder to vote against them at stage 3, because that would involve voting for less money for social care and less money for local government. Those are areas of spend that I have adjusted in the light of discussions. I have met Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders and stakeholders and listened to the third sector, and I have adjusted those areas of spend in the light of listening to all of them. Ultimately, the judgment will be yours to make when it comes to voting for or against that additional funding.
On that point about local authorities, you have presented it both here and in the chamber as if local authorities are buying into the Government’s line that this is a reasonable deal for them. However, Western Isles Council has announced today a council tax increase of, I think, 9.5 per cent. We are seeing councils come in towards the upper end of what I think people’s expectations are for council tax. If it was a reasonable settlement, they would not be forced to go down that road, would they?
I merely say to you that at no point have you come to me and said, “I think that local government needs another £250 million and it should be taken from A, B or C.” When it comes down to the brass tacks of how much money is available and where it comes from, it can only come from other areas of spend.
You have talked in fairly general, vague terms about social security spend, but you know as well as I do that, to adjust any social security spend, legislation would have to go through in this Parliament to adjust entitlements, and we would be a year down the line before we could do any of that, even if we wanted to. The budgets have to be in place for 1 April. The choice that I have—and the choice that you would have—involves the fact that the £200 million, £250 million or however much more you think that local government should get would have to come from, for example, higher and further education, the health budget or other front-line services. Those are the only places where it could come from in time for 1 April.
We have to be honest about what we are saying. If you truly believe that there is not enough money for local government, you could have made more money for it a condition of your support for the budget and told me where you thought that it should come from. However, you have not done that.
I am afraid that those are the choices that have to be made when you are sitting in my seat, and those are the choices that I have made.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2—Direct-funded bodies
Amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 7 and 10.
The three amendments in this group amend schedule 2 and section 4 to update the figures and authorised spending purposes for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Taken together, amendments 6 and 10 increase its maximum spend and its overall cash authorisation by £71,000 and £211,000 respectively. That is to align fully with the agreed budget.
Amendment 7 updates the SPCB’s authorised spending purposes to include specific reference to the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, both of which it will be responsible for funding in 2026-27. I urge members to support amendment 6 and the other amendments in the group.
I move amendment 6.
There are no members who wish to contribute to the debate. Cabinet secretary, would you like to wind up?
I have nothing else to add, convener.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment 7 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.
Amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 11.
The two amendments in this group likewise update the budget bill figures for Audit Scotland to fully align with the agreed budget. Amendment 8 amends schedule 2 to reduce Audit Scotland’s maximum spend by £82,000, whereas amendment 11 amends section 4 to increase its overall cash authorisation by £168,000. I urge members to support amendment 8 and the other amendment in this group.
I move amendment 8.
There are no colleagues who wish to contribute at this stage. Cabinet secretary, do you wish to wind up?
I have nothing to add.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Section 4—Overall cash authorisations
Amendments 9 to 11 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 to 11 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary for attending. The stage 3 proceedings and debate are due to take place on Wednesday 25 February. We will now suspend to allow for a change of witnesses.
10:54
Meeting suspended.
10:58
On resuming—