Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I very much respect the Presiding Officer and the instructions that we receive from you, but I want to raise a serious issue. During this debate, I was provided with a note that said that I would not be permitted to speak in the debate, despite my being a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

Although committee conveners are extremely important in the Parliament and have an important role to play in debates of this kind, I feel strongly that it is also the case that any committee member—indeed, any member of the Parliament—who would like to speak in a debate and has been accorded that facility by their whip’s office should be permitted to do so.

I say that because there is an important point about democracy and how this place is run when it comes to scrutiny. It is important that members should be allowed to participate. Members of the committee—I think that the views that I am expressing are shared by other members of the committee—are on the front line of seeing all the evidence that informs debates of this kind. Therefore, Presiding Officer, I ask you to consider whether, in the future, it is appropriate that only conveners speak in these debates.

Notwithstanding the minister’s previous answer, there are concerns among some Scottish employers that there are people out there who would be available for work but who are not willing to take some of the jobs in the market. What is the Scottish Government doing to address that particular aspect?

Good morning, Mr Swinney. I have two questions for clarification. In an answer to the convener, you mentioned that, following the election, ministers go through an induction period. Who carries out that induction?

Would you agree that the process is crucial in trying to ensure that there is trust? It is vital that everybody who is involved trusts that the system is robust and that, should there be an appeal, the external appointment is completely objective and not biased at all, and the appointed person has not previously been involved in the case.

That is very welcome.

Some people might feel that they have been harassed or bullied, or discriminated against. It is important, in order for them to be able to come forward relatively quickly, that there is trust and a line of independence. If it is felt that that is not there, that makes it all the more difficult for people to come forward, so I thank you for clarifying that.

I have one further question for you, Mr Swinney. Stage 4 of the draft procedure states:

“Where a complaint about a former Minister is upheld, the Permanent Secretary or delegate will consider steps to review practice ... This may include sharing structural lessons with the First Minister”.

Can you expand on what is meant by “structural lessons”? I am not quite sure what that is.

For absolutely clarity, is that about the structure of the process or the actual process itself?

Secondly, I would like clarification of what happens in an appeal process, should that arise. You mentioned that if there was to be an appeal, an external person who has no involvement with any aspect of the complaint would be brought in. Who would make the decision on appointment of that external person?

That would be very welcome, because there is an issue in politics with trust—it is not necessarily to do with the Scottish Government—and ensuring that the public can trust a political process in which somebody is quite clearly guilty of alleged offences. Public trust in politics is crucial; we are currently seeing that play out in various domains.

I will not, if Mr Gray does not mind, because we are very pushed for time today. Normally, I would. There will be budget debates next week.

Whatever understandable and very reasonable calls might be made in relation to other areas of Scottish Government funding, local government is finding the situation impossible. It has been short changed and severely disadvantaged.

There is a bigger picture here, too. The proportion of the local government budget that is ring fenced is now four times greater than it was three years ago. Added to that, of course, significant legislative commitments have been placed on local authorities because of the Scottish Government’s policy commitments. When we strip away those legislative commitments, in relation to which councils have no discretionary option, there is virtually nothing left over which they can have real autonomy, and that is one of the big complaints that COSLA is making.

We note that the Scottish Government’s argument for the extensive increase in ring fencing is that there is too great a variation in council performance. We do not need to point out that the relationship between the Scottish Government and councils is not particularly good at the moment, and how we mend that process is probably a debate for another day. However, I hope that the minister will understand that, for councils that are performing particularly well, the increase in ring fencing is an absolute slap in the face when it comes to how they carry out their business.

In April, councils will have some autonomy and freedom to set their own council tax rates without being obliged by the Scottish Government to keep to a particular cap. However,

“Every central government cut to council finance means a huge increase in council tax”.

Those are not my words—that was in the SNP manifesto not that long ago. I think that it was the same manifesto in which the SNP was claiming that it is Scotland’s oil; now, it does not seem to want that.

If councils are to address the underfunding, they will have to raise council tax—there is no other option. That is why we are calling for a different settlement and a procedure that allows agreement on that to be reached between the national Government and councils.

On 9 December 2021, when Kate Forbes presented her budget statement to Parliament, there was virtually no mention of local government despite the fact that local authorities are delivering so many critical services, which several members have referred to today. To many in this chamber and in local government, that speaks volumes about the Scottish Government’s disregard for local authorities not only now, but over a long period of time.

Local authorities are complaining not only about being underfunded and underresourced but about feeling—as Mark Griffin said—undervalued and constrained by the fact that they are increasingly tied to central Government. In other words, they feel that they are having to carry the can for central Government and for SNP policy failures. That is not fair, and that is why I support the motion in the name of Miles Briggs.

When every council leader in Scotland, including those in SNP-run councils, such as the City of Edinburgh Council, Glasgow City Council and Dundee City Council, are not only demanding a crisis meeting with the First Minister but excoriating in their criticism of the budget settlement, that tells its own story.

Local government has clearly had enough, and the anger transcends party politics. Indeed, it is plain for all to see that the budget settlement for the coming year has been the last straw, after the consecutive years of cuts that Daniel Johnson referred to. Councils are greatly concerned about their ability to provide core services, and they are especially concerned about the delivery of health and social care provision, given the ever-pressing and increasing demands in that area.

In this Parliament, we know only too well that there is always some debate about budgets and their interpretation. Willie Rennie talked about the conjuror’s tricks. I have to say that he was guilty of being a conjuror. However, he was outdone by Mr Greer and his extraordinary contortions, which were quite separate from anything that any of his Green colleagues would have said when the party was not in government.

The minister mentioned what the Scottish Fiscal Commission said about the funding settlement. It also said that the Scottish Government and the local authorities are agreed on the fact that the cash-terms settlements for 2021-22 and 2022-23 are exactly the same. That is among the core issues that go to the heart of the debate, and it should be seen in the context of the fact that, from 2013-14 up until last year, the local government finance settlement decreased in real terms by 2.4 per cent, whereas the Scottish Government’s budget went up by 3.1 per cent over the same period.