Chamber and committees

They are including the emergency Covid funding. Is the Fraser of Allander Institute wrong? [Interruption.] They are right? Great, so we know that the core budget has increased.

A great example of political deceit is local government funding. The SNP-Green coalition of chaos badged it, just earlier today, as an increase. COSLA said that it was a cut. The SNP council leaders said that it was a cut. SPICe tells us that it is a cut. Everyone in the chamber knows that it is a cut of—now—£251 million. That is how the devolved Government views local government. It is not partnership working.

I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton. Every year, we go through the pantomime. For me, as a council leader over the past four years, today is like groundhog day. The gap was always about £350 million, and £100 million was always thrown in at the last minute. We used to think that the Greens were saving the day; now we know that it was going to happen anyway.

I will easily set the budget whenever the Government wants to move out of office.

Again, it is all spin. When we cut through the spin, the detail is very hard to find. For example, the just transition fund for the north-east and Moray remains a mystery that Agatha Christie could not solve. Little contact has been made with local authorities in the area, and local representatives have been kept in the dark about the scope and the aims of the fund. We can see it as a budget line, but we do not know where, how or by whom the money will be spent, nor what engagement will be made with local authorities in the north-east, or when.

The budget is about priorities and this budget is about a devolved Government whose priorities are all wrong. The Government’s priorities should be to help businesses recover from the pandemic, help our high streets and retail sector, find ways to halt the economic divergence from the rest of the UK, grow our economy, manage the energy transition and not throw the oil and gas industry under a bus. Instead, there is spending on offices and staffing abroad, with no detail and no reason why that money is being spent or who benefits. In addition, resource is being diverted to planning for another divisive independence referendum, which will drive investment away, wreck business confidence and be bad for jobs because of the uncertainty that it causes.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report shows the economic challenges that Scotland faces. It is sheer recklessness even to talk about an independence referendum. If the Government cared about Scotland’s economic future, it would take that threat off the table now.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am still a member of Aberdeen City Council. It is from a council point of view that I am so angry about the budget. As well as cutting funding for essential services, the devolved Scottish Government has increased the ring fencing of council budgets: further project announcements mean that the bread and butter of council work—the issues that people care about—are cut further. Local councils deliver such projects in good faith, but are concerned that, because funding is being cut, essential services can no longer be delivered.

Yesterday, I took part in an Aberdeen City Council education committee meeting, in which we learned that the funding for early learning and childcare had been cut by £4.6 million, despite a promise from the Scottish Government to fully fund early learning. That service is now statutory, so it must be delivered, which means cuts to other services. SNP-run Moray Council also reported a £3.3 million black hole in its funding for ELC, thanks to the Scottish Government breaking its promise.

The reason why I get so angry when it comes to local government funding is that I am sick of the hypocrisy that comes from the devolved Government. Time and again, we hear about prevention; I heard about it in committee, and I heard about it in the chamber just yesterday. Early intervention is key to so many challenges that we face as a country. Much of the best prevention and early intervention takes place through local government. It is local government that provides the youth clubs, social centres, sports facilities, lunch clubs, community policing teams and school counselling services. All those services are at risk if the Scottish Government fails to properly fund local councils. Those are the things that will bring savings to the health and justice budgets and will improve people’s outcomes. Without those preventative services, how will we tackle, at the earliest possible opportunity, the challenges that Scotland faces? The budget is a missed opportunity.

Will the member give way?

Thank you.

If the six-month period has passed, who makes the decision on whether the matter will be investigated?

But who makes that decision?

Thank you.

My next question is on openness and transparency. From reading the procedure, it seems to me that a complaint could be made and upheld but that would never be made public. Is that right? It is difficult, because we have to respect the confidentiality of the complainer and the person who is complained about, but it seems to me that there is a balance there, and I am not sure that it has been struck.

Inward secondees and agency workers are not covered by the procedure. I understand that there are reasons for that—they are not employed by the Scottish Government—but are there legal reasons why they cannot be covered by the procedure? Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, whether it is towards an employee or an agency worker. Is there almost a loophole being created by excluding such workers?

My next question ties into that. At the end of stage 1, if a complaint is not going to be proceeded with, will the person against whom the complaint has been made ever find out that a complaint has been made?

I want to talk a little more about the timings of complaints. It is clear from the procedure that, if a complaint is made within six months of an incident, it will be investigated. I want to ask about cases where complaints are made after that six-month period. From reading the procedure, it is not clear to me who decides whether the issue should be looked at. If it is decided that an incident will not be investigated because it has been too long since it occurred, will the appeal process kick in at that point, so that the complainer can take the issue further if they wish to do so?