Chamber and committees

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

This topic is undoubtedly important, but I am not sure that the debate has shed much more light on it. As invited by Tom Arthur at the beginning, I will try to build some consensus.

Local government is hugely important, but part of the problem is that we keep discussing local government funding when what we need to focus on is the reality that that money pays for roads, schools, libraries, playgrounds and social services that keep the most vulnerable safe. As Douglas Lumsden has said, local government has been at the forefront of the delivery of the most vital services through the Covid response.

We struggle to find more consensus. The debate is about not just the budget but the legacy of 10 years of cuts and underfunding of local government. We have seen the number of potholes increase fivefold over the past decade and £260,000 of compensation payments go to motorists in Edinburgh because of them; the number of libraries has been cut by a third and there are 32 per cent fewer librarians; and the numbers of non-core support staff in our schools have been slashed across the country.

It is difficult to engage with SNP members who claim that there are no cuts, only increases. The Accounts Commission clearly points out a 4.2 per cent real-terms cut in local government funding over the past five years, when Scottish Government funding has reduced by just 0.8 per cent. The Scottish Government took the cuts that the Tories passed on and increased them fivefold.

Let us talk frankly about numbers and not pretend that no cuts have taken place—they have, which is a crushing blow after the efforts of local government and its leaders. All 32 local council leaders signed the letter that states that the cuts amount to

“a £371m real terms cut”

in the current budget. If SNP members want to deny that figure, they need to explain why so many of their own council leaders signed that letter.

The SNP’s lack of clarity perhaps should not surprise us, because inconsistency has marked its time in Government with regard to local government. Let us consider council tax. When it came into government, the SNP heralded the fact that it would scrap it; later, it said that it would bring back councils’ ability to set their own council tax; last year, it said that it would freeze it again; and, in this budget, it said that it would restore to local government the discretion to set council tax. Which is it? How the SNP values and approaches local government rightly confuses us all.

The reality is that, over 10 years, local government has seen almost £1 billion cut in real terms from its ability to spend, which ultimately impacts roads, schools, libraries and playgrounds—the very services that are the fabric of our communities and the bedrock on which so many people rely. When we talk about those numbers, let us remember their real impacts and that real people and communities are the ones to suffer because of £1 billion-worth of cuts from the SNP Government over the past decade.

I will be brief. Will the minister also acknowledge the Accounts Commission’s figures, which show a longer-term almost 5 per cent real-terms cut over five years?

It is Colin Smyth.

The sites could generate upwards of £6 billion for international firms, which will pay just £700 million for the rights for 10 years. What does the Scottish Government assess the payback period and net present value of the projects to those corporations to be? Does that represent good value for money for the Scottish taxpayer, or are the profits simply being blown offshore?

On 5 January, the First Minister confirmed that £375 million would be made available for business support. I believe that, to date, only £262 million has been allocated, leaving £113 million. If that is correct, when will that sum be allocated? Will the provision of that support afford the Government the ability to address the issues that were outlined by Mr Mason and to extend support to sectors that, so far, have completely missed out, such as retail, given the deeply damaging impact that restrictions have had at this most critical trading time of the year?

I remind the Parliament of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I would not disagree with that, but I ask the member to acknowledge that other political decisions that have been made over the past 10 years have impacted on our productivity, our labour participation rate, our attempts to tackle skills shortages and, ultimately, our income tax receipts. Not only are those receipts growing more slowly than the UK average, but pretty much every Scottish region is lagging behind pretty much every other region of the UK. Those are the consequences of other political decisions.

Our amendment would not remove the reference to Brexit—

Will the member give way on that point?

I quite agree that Brexit has had an impact on migration, but does the cabinet secretary not agree that, in order to address the issues fully, we need to look at the underlying factors, including workforce participation and long-term productivity, both of which pre-date Covid and Brexit?