Chamber and committees

Is the cabinet secretary aware of changes to the system of—[Inaudible.]—long-term empty or second homes in Wales, and has the Scottish Government considered giving local authorities in Central Scotland the powers to implement a similar scheme, which could reduce the number of long-term empty homes, raise additional funds to build social housing and reduce the number of families who are waiting for a home?

To ask the Scottish Government how many households are waiting for social housing in Central Scotland. (S6O-00813)

Will the minister clarify that not a single penny of that funding should go towards paying existing council tax debt, to ensure that it reaches the people who need it most?

Labour will vote for the order reluctantly, with no enthusiasm, to ensure that councils get the allocations that have been offered, and in the hope—more than the expectation—that the cost of living support package will make it into the pockets of those who need it most. We disagreed with the SNP-Green budget, because it will continue to squeeze our local authorities dry. It is not a fair funding package for our communities; it is a timid, uninspiring budget. It forces councils to comply and make more cuts while they struggle to keep up with demand for local services.

The Government’s utterly delusional spin said that the budget represents “a total cash increase” in real terms but, as we have come to expect year on year, the budget was in fact packed full of cuts. The overall size of the pie might have increased, but only because the proportion of the budget that is ring fenced—the bit that locally elected councillors cannot make decisions on—has increased seventyfold since 2013. This year alone, it will jump from 11.5 per cent of revenue grant to 17.9 per cent.

Councils came into the budget process setting out what they would need to survive, which was £700 million, and to thrive, which was £1.5 billion. That plea must have fallen on deaf ears, as it was business as usual for the SNP and the Greens, and what councils got was nothing. Funding for core services is flat. It is the same as it was in 2021-22, which is therefore a real-terms cut. In a matter of months, the difference will be magnified further as runaway inflation takes hold, pay claims come in and service demand escalates when people struggle in the worsening cost of living crisis.

That comes on top of a decade of cuts, which means that, since 2013-14, the core services budget—income from the general revenue grant and business rates—is now worth £911 million less in real terms. The SNP has let inflation eat away at services across the country. Glasgow’s budget is worth £182 million less, North Lanarkshire’s is £69 million less and Edinburgh’s is £65 million less. That is millions of pounds gone from services that keep our towns, villages and communities going.

It is no wonder that social work is on its knees, roads are crumbling, libraries have closed and bins overflow weekly. That is what years of the SNP raiding council budgets gets us. It has stripped services to the bone, just as this order will do. In the Scottish Government allocations over the same period, the revenue budget has grown by 8 per cent, yet core council funding has been slashed by 12 per cent since 2013-14.

Worse is still to come. The £120 million that the cabinet secretary found is not baselined, so 2022 will be spent looking for further savings in 2023. The one-off £30 million that councils got in the autumn to settle a pay claim was not baselined either, and there is no headroom for next year.

Local government pandemic heroes, patronised all year long by ministers and told that they are not comparable to national health service workers, fear an even worse pay offer this year, which will fall behind the cost of living. As the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee heard, councils know to expect

“a very difficult industrial landscape ahead”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 11 January 2022; c 10.],

but, as ever, the Government seems unwilling to listen.

I raise with the minister the appalling choice to copy the Tory cost of living council tax rebate and simply stick a saltire on it. Despite the SNP promising repeatedly to reform council tax, we are no further forward in abandoning the Tories’ regressive local taxation system. Council tax bands have never been a proxy for income, but the Government’s own figures show that, to hugely wasteful effect, 40 per cent of people who are due the £150 have above-average incomes and about 100,000 of the richest households—those with the top 10 per cent of incomes—are set to receive the £150 because they live in properties in bands A to D.

More important, payments should be made directly to people so that they can budget for themselves, just as with our fuel payment proposal. It would be absolutely disastrous if the £150 went towards the £260 million of council tax debt that 300,000 households owe. It is a poor offer, just like the wider package for local government, which will not do much to support our communities or the people who need help most.

Good morning, minister. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am the owner of a rented property in North Lanarkshire.

Minister, you have set out some of the changes to the charter, and the reasons for them. I want to touch on the incorporation of a reference to human rights and the right to housing for all. I want to explore the concept of a right to housing as opposed to a right to a choice of housing. Many people are in housing that, essentially, would meet the right to housing, but they are in a tenure that would not be of their choice. There are those in a private let who would want to be in social housing. What discussion was had on that change—perhaps about reflecting a right to a choice in housing rather than just the right to housing?

I want to move on to a different area. How does the Scottish Housing Regulator use the results of landlords’ reporting to gauge against standards and outcomes in its regulatory framework?

Thank you.

I appreciate the commitment. As I have said, this has been a common theme in the submissions and the evidence-taking sessions that we have had so far.

Once approval is given and the delivery plan is published, the document will be in place for 10 years instead of the previous five. How will progress with the delivery plan be reviewed? As I am sure you will agree, any review of progress will be far more important with a 10-year rather a five-year timescale.

We have repeatedly heard from stakeholders in person and in writing that they are positive about the ambitions that are contained in NPF4, but that they question their deliverability—or, not so much the deliverability but their ability to scrutinise the deliverability. Why was the draft document not accompanied by a draft delivery plan to enable that scrutiny and will a delivery plan be published before the final draft of NPF4 is laid?

The minister will be aware that the proportion of fully vaccinated people is 54 per cent in Rwanda, but 9 per cent in Zambia and just 4 per cent in Malawi. Those countries are the Scottish Government partner countries that the minister has mentioned, and they should and will look forward to receiving that additional support. Does the minister engage with the authorities in those countries on the reasons for such a slow roll-out? How many vaccines have been shared with those countries?