Chamber and committees

The member needs to understand that the Government that he supports has not handed on to local authorities the money that it has been given in Barnett consequentials—and it is not just Barnett consequentials; if we look at the national insurance contributions compensation, we see that that has not been passed on either. When the member raises those concerns in the chamber, he needs to speak to his own ministers to make sure that they have passed on those Barnett consequentials.

In bringing forward this debate today, I hope that it will give the SNP-Green Government the chance to think again and look at how to provide a fair deal for councils and the resources that they need to deliver vital local services. I fully respect that the Government might not want to hear this from me, but maybe it should listen to its own council leaders.

I welcome this week’s U-turn by Nicola Sturgeon and the finance secretary, which means that they will now meet council leaders after a furious backlash in response to the SNP-Green Government’s real-terms cut for local authorities. It is clear that, as things stand, the budget settlement will see a real-terms cut of around £371 million to the core local government budget, which has been frozen in cash terms.

In addition, analysis by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities found that additional policy obligations placed on local government in 2022-23 have been underfunded by around £100 million.

SNP-Green ministers have repeatedly said that they respect and want to work in partnership with our local authorities. When the budget comes back to Parliament next week, we will see what that looks like. In the Government’s amendment, no answers have been put forward. All that we see is that ministers are offering a citizens assembly to look at sources of local government funding. SNP ministers do not need a citizens assembly to tell them that they are short changing local government—they simply need to pick up the phone to SNP council leaders.

We need to see a sea change and a new partnership built between the Scottish Government and local authorities. That is why Scottish Conservatives are proposing a new fair funding formula to make sure that councils receive their fair share of funding when the Scottish Government does. Although the Barnett formula ensures that the Scottish Government’s budget is linked to UK Government spending, there is no such protection for local government and the services that it provides.

The new fair funding formula would help to deliver a new financial framework that ensures that councils automatically receive a set percentage of the Scottish Government budget each year, mirroring the relationship that the Scottish Government has with the UK Government. That would prevent SNP ministers from consistently asking our councils to do more with less and it would prevent the situation that we see today, where SNP-Green ministers ring fence council budgets for their Scottish Government priorities on the one hand and cut council funding on the other.

I hope that all parties will unite today to support our councils. SNP-Green ministers cannot continue to simply pass the blame for their cuts to councils. The SNP-Green budget has yet again put council leaders the length and breadth of Scotland in the position of having to make huge cuts to services or dramatically increase council tax at the very time that ministers have received record levels of funding from the UK Government.

SNP-Green ministers need to think again. The Scottish Government must provide the resources that are needed to fund our good schools and social care services, and it must properly fund our councils to help to build stronger, safer and more prosperous communities. That is something that we should all unite around. I hope that, as the cabinet secretary listens to the debate, she understands that she has to look again at the Government budget that she has provided.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the calls made by COSLA and all council group leaders for the Scottish Government to deliver a much better financial settlement for the next financial year; further notes that COSLA states that the funding cut to the core revenue budget is £371 million in real terms, and calls on the Scottish Government to commit to fair funding for local councils by delivering a new financial framework, which will ensure that councils automatically receive a set percentage of the Scottish Government budget each year.

We have been absolutely clear. The finance secretary has seen £3.9 billion of additional Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. That should be handed on to local government—that is where we on this side of the chamber stand. We want to see a fair deal for local authorities, whereby the funding that the Scottish Government receives is adequately handed on to local authorities.

Very, very briefly.

I thank the minister.

I have two things to ask. First, COSLA highlighted that the Scottish Government has not handed on national insurance contributions compensation of around £70 million. Why is that?

Secondly, if this budget is as wonderful as he makes out, why has Iain Nicolson, the leader of Renfrewshire Council and a fellow SNP member, had to write to the First Minister to ask for the settlement to be looked at again?

I absolutely do. As the member outlined, the concerns are shared across the sector, including by the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, the Professional Association of Self Caterers UK, Scottish Agritourism, Scotland’s Best B&Bs, and the Scottish Bed & Breakfast Association, as well as Scottish Land & Estates. What is concerning is that, as Willie Rennie outlined, the views of the sector have not been taken on board, and the workable solution that has been put forward in the form of a registration scheme has been put to one side by SNP ministers. Indeed, the whole short-term lets sector is united in favouring a registration scheme. The sector also has support from the Federation of Small Businesses, NFU Scotland and all short-term lets organisations. It is worth reflecting that several of those bodies are so angry with the Scottish Government that they felt the need to leave the short-term lets stakeholder working group, because they felt that it was a “sham”, in their words, and that it was not addressing their concerns in any constructive way.

I also welcome the comments from my SNP colleague Fergus Ewing, who was mentioned by Willie Rennie. He discovered his independence on the back benches when he said at committee—and I fully agree with this—that

“the licensing scheme is too draconian and unfair”.

Self-catering is an integral and hugely important part of the Scottish tourism sector, in terms of jobs, revenues and the world-class experience that Scotland offers to visiting guests. The sector generates £867 million annually for the Scottish economy. Throughout the passage of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022, significant concerns have been raised by the sector and those whose livelihoods depend on the income that they receive.

Given the impact that the pandemic has had, we should be mindful of the unintended consequences and the potential negative impact that the new order will have on already fragile tourism businesses. Scottish National Party ministers clearly understood that the previous order was unfit when they withdrew it in February 2021. It has been largely unchanged, and the new draft was laid in January 2022, but the concerns of industry, experts and members have been dismissed by ministers.

I have been working on the matter with other members of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. None of us is against the change, but the clear ask was that, given the impact of the pandemic, the Scottish Government consider a registration scheme, rather than a licensing scheme. Will the cabinet secretary say why that suggestion was so categorically rejected and why people had to leave the Government’s working group?

That is really helpful; I am grateful for that clarity.

Finally, I will ask about an issue that relates to my initial questions. NPF4 will place a new requirement on developers and planning authorities to assess the life-cycle carbon emissions of certain developments. The developers will carry out the assessments, which will be considered by planning officers. Has an impact assessment been undertaken of that new requirement, or will that be conducted during the consultation? It could be a significant and potentially burdensome process for developers and individual councils.

That is helpful; thank you.

I will move on to the recent planning legislation, which requires Scottish ministers to set out how the NPF will contribute to meeting a series of outcomes, including, in particular, the housing needs of older people and disabled people. There has been criticism from the Law Society of Scotland, for example, which questions whether the approach is compliant with the 1997 act. Will you explain your approach and how those outcomes will be included in NPF4?

I do not know whether Fiona Simpson or Andy Kinnaird wants to respond to that.

The specific section on renewable energy seems to lack clarity. It also seems to contradict itself. That is why there are concerns about different priorities being open to interpretation.

Obviously, the committee cannot amend the draft plan. Is that discussion being held in the consultation that you are having with energy developers? We know that there were a number of complaints about the fact that renewable energy developments were not taken forward, about the time that it takes councils to get them moving, or about the fact that they have been called in by the Government when they are rejected. What learning has taken place for future developments, to make sure that renewable energy comes online as soon as possible to meet our energy needs?