Scottish Parliament, 19 January 2022

328 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Health and Social Care

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place, and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The first item of business is portfolio questions. I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and answers in order to get in as many members as possible.

Waiting Times (Conditions other than Covid-19)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce waiting times for patients with conditions other than Covid-19. (S6O-00626)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister and I launched the “NHS Recovery Plan 2021-2026” in August last year in response to pressures on national health service services that were caused by the pandemic. The plan sets out key headline ambitions and actions to be developed and delivered now and over the next 5 years. That is backed by more than £1 billion of investment over the next five years, of which £80 million has been invested in this financial year to support NHS boards to target the backlog of treatment and care.

Although it is important to stress that recovery and reducing waiting times for patients with conditions other than Covid is the immediate task, the plan is fundamentally about ensuring that the recovery process delivers long-term sustainability and alternative pathways of care that allow people to be treated more quickly and, crucially, closer to home.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary pointed to the “NHS Recovery Plan 2021-2026”, which the British Medical Association warned on its release contained “worrying gaps”, and towards which little progress was made in the months before the omicron variant emerged as a significant concern.

In many areas, the pandemic has not created new problems but has exacerbated pre-existing issues. Weekly accident and emergency figures are the worst on record and there is continued poor performance on the 62-day standard for an urgent suspicion of cancer referral to first treatment. Almost 60,000 people have been waiting for treatment or diagnostic tests for more than 12 months.

Can the cabinet secretary tell me how long it will take for the delays and backlogs to be meaningfully tackled, and does he accept that although there might be more NHS staff than there were before, demand is higher? How will the Scottish Government tackle the backlogs without piling considerable additional pressure on existing staff?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Jamie Halcro Johnston is in genuine danger of denying the impact that Covid has had. I am not saying that there were no issues, challenges or problems pre-pandemic—of course there were. However, it would be equally ridiculous to suggest that the pandemic has not had a major impact—rather than a slight or marginal impact—on the NHS and the services that it provides.

I will not rehearse all the targets and ambitions in the recovery plan, but I note that, crucially, we intend to increase NHS capacity by at least 10 per cent to address the backlog of care. We will increase our funding to the NHS. The next financial year will see it getting a record settlement of more than £18 billion. We will continue to ensure that we have record staffing in our NHS and that the staff are the best-paid NHS staff in the United Kingdom.

As I said in my first answer, we want to ensure that there are appropriate alternative pathways that allow people to be treated as close to home as possible.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Getting access to primary care treatment is of fundamental importance. The health secretary will be aware of the challenges that NHS Lanarkshire faces, which are driven by demand and staffing pressures and have resulted in NHS Lanarkshire scaling back some of the services that are provided by general practitioners. I am reassured that that is being reviewed weekly, and I am reassured by the conversations that I have had with the health secretary about the situation. Can he update me on action that the Scottish Government is taking to support NHS Lanarkshire, and general practices in particular, to allow those services to return as quickly as possible?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Neil Gray for raising the issue with me directly. I will host a meeting with Lanarkshire MSPs from various political parties and the health board on Monday. I spoke to Dr Andrew Buist from the BMA today on the issue. Access to GPs is crucial.

We will support staff across the NHS where we can. Neil Gray will be aware that an exemption exists that allows staff to return when they are a close contact of somebody who has tested positive. That used to require a negative polymerase chain reaction—PCR—test, but I have, based on clinical advice, removed that requirement, which should help with the staffing issue.

No single thing can help with the staffing issue, but we are doing many things. I assure the member that we have regular engagement with NHS Lanarkshire, in particular.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Waiting times were already a significant problem before the pandemic hit. Before the pandemic, 450,000 people were waiting. Now, the number has gone up to 650,000. One of the royal colleges has told me that one significant barrier to catching up with waiting lists—certainly, for operations—is that there is simply no space in hospital settings. In addition to creating capacity, what consideration has the cabinet secretary given to utilising spare theatres, such as those at the Vale of Leven district general hospital?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Jackie Baillie has asked a good question and

made an important point. The Government is working centrally to see where we might have theatre space, where we might have nursing and clinical staff, and how we can marry the two. Some of that work has been done.

The Golden Jubilee national hospital plays a crucial role, and I talk to the health board regularly about how to maximise its capacity. However, Jackie Baillie is right that other acute care sites exist, which might have the theatre space but not quite the number of clinical staff. That work is on-going; I am happy to continue to keep Ms Baillie and other members updated on it.

Minor Injury Units (Reopening)

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when it will release its plans for the reopening of minor injury units. (S6O-00627)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I make it clear that there is no national policy to close minor injury units. Throughout the pandemic, the majority of MIUs have remained open, but I know that in some health boards—NHS Grampian, for example—units have closed temporarily to allow staff to be allocated to areas with the greatest need, such as in Covid assessment centres.

I should also say that we do not have a specific policy on the provision of minor injury units in communities. We leave local health boards to make those decisions at the local level, following clinical advice.

To ensure that everyone can continue to get the right care at the right time, we have invested £23 million this year for the redesign of urgent care. Under the new approach, NHS 24 is now available 24/7 for people who think that they need accident and emergency services, but whose illness is not life threatening. Through that service, people might be offered a virtual consultation, receive care closer to home or receive a scheduled appointment during a safe time at A and E.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Turriff minor injury unit provided an essential service to the local community. Without it, Turriff residents have to make long journeys to already crowded A and E departments. Constituents have raised fears about the long-term future of the Turriff MIU, which was shut temporarily 20 months ago.

Can the cabinet secretary commit to the reopening of the Turriff MIU and give a timescale for my constituents who have been deprived of easy access to health care?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will leave such decisions to be made locally, but I will, of course, raise that point with the health board.

Douglas Lumsden’s central point is correct. If minor injury units are not open, first, people might have to travel further, and secondly, they will go to acute sites that are already busy and under pressure.

I completely understand and agree with the member’s rationale that minor injury units should remain open where possible; they are open in the vast majority of health boards. However, Douglas Lumsden is right to raise the specific issue. I will raise it with the health board and update him on those conversations.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

Figures that were published yesterday

show that for the week ending 9 January only 60.4 per cent of patients who attended A and E in NHS Forth Valley were seen within four hours. I thank all the staff who continue to work immensely hard to try to improve that situation.

Given the pressure that has been placed on A and E departments, has consideration been given to reopening a minor injury unit in NHS Forth Valley?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am

sure that consideration has been given to the matter. I speak to the Forth Valley board regularly, and I know that Gillian Mackay does, too—she and I had a conversation before Christmas around the specific challenges in relation to NHS Forth Valley.

Although NHS Forth Valley is challenged, I expect improvement. I will not comment on next week’s figures until they are published, but we know that the week ending 9 January was particularly pressured because of the high level of staff absences, Covid occupancy and the cumulative effects of the pandemic over the past 22 months.

I assure Gillian Mackay that NHS Forth Valley is leaving no stone unturned in trying to better that performance. I expect it to continue to ensure that local members are kept updated on the improvement plan.

The Presiding Officer

Question 3 is not lodged.

Care Inspectorate (Inspection and Assessment of Care Homes)

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the Care Inspectorate in its role of inspecting and assessing care homes. (S6O-00629)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

My officials and I are in regular contact with the Care Inspectorate to discuss a range of strategic issues including inspections and resources. Under the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, Scottish ministers are also required to approve the Care Inspectorate’s annual scrutiny and assurance plan, which underpins their activity and is reviewed regularly. In 2021-22, the Scottish Government provided the Care Inspectorate with additional and recurring budget of £4 million to meet resource pressures.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

The number of inspections of care homes has decreased by 41 per cent, from 1,372 in 2016-17 to just 812 in 2020-21. That decline was happening even before the pandemic. Following storm Arwen, it has come to light that a number of care homes and assisted living sites did not have adequate resilience planning, and that would have been picked up by inspections. Does the minister agree that the reduced resilience is a direct result of the decrease in the number of inspections? What action will he take to rectify that?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am keen to hear from Mr Burnett the details of those resilience matters. If he wishes to write to me, I will respond accordingly.

During the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak, the Care Inspectorate, with the agreement of Scottish ministers, took the decision to scale down inspections, recognising that they might put an unnecessary burden on the care sector. It could also have contributed to the spreading of Covid-19 and put its inspectors at risk. That reflected the position of other United Kingdom and Irish regulators. That decision has been criticised, but it was the right thing to do. On-site care home inspections resumed in May 2020.

During the pandemic, it has not been possible for the Care Inspectorate to inspect all adult care home services in the conventional way. Instead, the Care Inspectorate has adopted a more targeted, intelligence-led and risk-based approach to service inspections. That approach has prioritised on-site inspections of care homes for older people and of services where immediate risk is identified.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

Last week, it was reported that one third of Scottish care homes are now restricting visits because of the high prevalence of infections in communities and the interpretation of a managed outbreak by public health authorities. Relatives, however, feel that, with a correct testing regime and protective measures in place, visiting should be maintained in line with guidance. Indeed, some have called for the Care Inspectorate to take on the key role of checking that testing is robust, comprehensive and publicly reported in inspection reports to provide confidence and keep homes open to visitors. As we move forward, will the minister look at that role for the Care Inspectorate in monitoring, reporting and ensuring that care homes remain open to visitors?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Care Inspectorate is already looking at homes in which visiting is not what it should be. I thank the Care Inspectorate for the help that it has given the Government during these times.

I hope that changes to the Public Health Scotland guidance, which will be issued today, will make some differences and ensure that relatives have access to their loved ones in care homes. As always, I am keen to hear from members where there might be difficulties so that we can follow those up with colleagues in the Care Inspectorate in order to get it right for residents of care homes and their relatives.

Social Care (Financial Support for Personal Protective Equipment)

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to extend financial support for PPE in the social care sector. (S6O-00630)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Social care providers can claim back PPE costs over and above their usual amount. In 2021-22, £862 million has been allocated to help with costs arising from Covid-19, which demonstrates our commitment to supporting the sustainability and resilience of the sector.

A decision will be taken in due course about all financial support measures for social care providers post-March. Support is also available to social care providers, including unpaid carers and personal assistants, through local PPE hubs for emergency PPE supply. We are working with NHS National Services Scotland on how best to supply PPE over the longer term.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for that commitment.

The cost of PPE is only one of the increased costs that the sector faces. Will the minister heed concerns and ensure that it is fully funded for the true costs of care through the renegotiations on the national care home contract?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Government is not involved in the negotiation of the

national care home contract. That is a matter for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the care providers—they are the ones that make the decisions on that, not the Government.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I want to ask about access to FFP3 masks in social care. Have risk assessments been carried out by employers if FFP3 masks are not routinely provided? Are those dynamic assessments that reflect increases in the levels of coronavirus transmission? Are individual assessments available for those staff who consider themselves to be at risk?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

In November, winter respiratory guidance was published that sets out the appropriate PPE to use in different circumstances. All of that is in line with the World Health Organization guidance.

PPE guidance is developed by infection prevention and control experts on a four-nations basis. The United Kingdom IPC cell is responsible for providing advice and guidance in relation to PPE requirements and IPC measures more generally.

If Ms Baillie requires further detail, I would be happy to respond accordingly, but we are following the updated guidance.

Social Care (Fife)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions on social care provision in Fife. (S6O-00631)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We are in daily contact with health and social care partnerships, and we continue to monitor closely the on-going impact of the pandemic and the challenges that that brings for the social care sector nationwide. Health boards and health and social care partnerships have provided assurances that people who are in need of the most urgent care and support will continue to receive it and that its delivery will be prioritised.

The Scottish Government’s “Adult Social Care Winter Preparedness Plan 2021-22” sets out measures to address social care provision in all local authorities, including Fife Council, and outlines how we will support people who use services, the workforce and unpaid carers.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Although I well understand that responsibility for the delivery of social care services in Fife lies with Fife Council, NHS Fife and, of course, the health and social care partnership, given the very great challenges in Fife at this time, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts of our front-line social care staff, what help can the Scottish Government offer so that all those who need social care get the services that they are entitled to on a timely basis?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I thank Ms Ewing for her question. I know that she has been pursuing the matter vigorously. At question time last week, she asked the Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery whether we thought that folk in Fife were straining every sinew to deliver for people locally. Having talked to the chief officer of the health and social care partnership on Monday, I think that that is the case. She has said that the past three weeks have been the most strenuous three weeks in her career, and

I believe that staff are doing all that they can.

As for Government support, NHS Fife was allocated £7 million from the additional £300 million of winter funding that was announced on 5 October. That included £2.7 million for interim care and £4.2 million to expand care-at-home capacity. I know that Fife is ensuring that that money is spent wisely and that it is doing its level best.

We fully appreciate the problems that local partnerships are having in providing social care at this time. Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister convened a special meeting with local council leaders, health boards and local authority chief executives, along with representatives from the third sector, to identify further ways in which we can support the social care sector, including in Fife. We will continue to have those discussions and to monitor, and we, as a Government, will continue to do all that we can to support the social care sector across Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister really should not be satisfied with the assurance that those with the most urgent needs are having them addressed, because, every single day in Fife, many people are not getting important and essential visits. They are missing out on meals, tuck-ins and medicines. Will the minister realise that the issue has been building up for years and that we should no longer take carers for granted? We need them, we need them now and we should start paying them properly.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We recognise that there needs to be support for the social care sector. On the issue of pay, we have announced two pay increases, funded by the Government, over the past few months. We have a way to go in relation to pay and conditions. One of the reasons why I am so keen to see a national care service is so that we can have national pay bargaining and set the right conditions for folk in the sector.

I agree with Mr Rennie that there are folk out there who are not getting the levels of care that they had previously. However, we are at the most precarious stage in this pandemic. Although I am glad to see the number of Covid cases reducing, there are still a number of Covid cases. There are folk off and winter pressures, and it is fair to say that staff are tired, too.

I know that NHS Fife is doing its level best, and we will continue to support its staff in any way that we possibly can. The daily discussions between the Government and health and social care partnerships will continue. We will do our level best to support them to the utmost, and I know that they will do all that they can to support the folk in their communities to get the right care.

Long Covid (Support)

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the support that it is providing to the reported increasing number of people with long Covid. (S6O-00632)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We continue to implement the 16 commitments contained in our approach paper, which is backed by a £10 million long Covid support fund.

We have launched a long Covid information platform on NHS Inform to help people manage their symptoms, and we continue to support clinicians to access evidence-based information and advice to inform assessments, investigations and referrals.

Finally, NHS National Services is establishing a strategic network, bringing together clinical experts, national health service boards and—most crucially—those with lived experience, to support the on-going development, resourcing and implementation of services for people with long Covid.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

In September 2021, the Scottish Government earmarked £10 million for a long Covid support fund. Four months on, what improved or better co-ordinated services are now in place to care for and support the 100,000 Scots suffering with long Covid? Why has the Government decided not to invest in dedicated long Covid clinics?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Pam Gosal for recognising the investment that the Scottish Government has made, which is crucial and important and will help when it comes to the development of our long Covid response. That response is developing, of course, because we are continuing to learn more about long Covid as time goes on. That is why we have also taken the decision to invest in research, which is important, alongside the practical action that I outlined and that our framework outlines.

Of course, there is nothing preventing NHS boards from developing long Covid clinics using, for example, the Hertfordshire model, which I think Pam Gosal and other colleagues have referenced before. There is no barrier to boards doing that, but to suggest or allude to the idea that long Covid clinics are the panacea or solution for those who are suffering from long Covid would be misguided. We let health boards take the approach that works for them locally.

I am pleased that we have invested £10 million. I will continue to keep a close eye on and pay close attention to the issue, and if further resourcing is required, we will continue to explore that.

Breast Screening Programme (Resumption of Self-referral for Over-70s)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the date by which self-referral for over-70s to the breast screening programme will resume. (S6O-00633)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Although programme capacity remains challenging due to Covid-19, the pause on self-referrals allows appointments to be prioritised for women aged 50 to 70. However, I recognise the anxiety that the pause is causing, and I have asked officials to accelerate consideration of restart options that would not unduly impact appointment times for the eligible screening population. That will not be easy. Any decision will be informed by clinical advice and the on-going pandemic.

In the meantime, if anyone, of any age, is concerned that they may have symptoms of breast cancer, they should immediately make an appointment with their general practitioner practice.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With cancer diagnosis rates down during Covid and the overall rising trend in the incidence of cancer, many women in my constituency have been concerned about their inability to self-refer for breast screening. As the minister knows, Orkney is one of the areas that are reliant on mobile screening units turning up every three years. Does she accept that, as the screening service returns to pre-pandemic arrangements, there is a case for looking at what more might be done in places such as Orkney to ensure that those who need and wish to be screened can have that opportunity, and can she confirm that there are no plans to move from a three-year to a five-year cycle for screening?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I fully understand the concern of the women in Orkney and I can assure everyone that women who live on the islands will not be forgotten. Work on options to restart will consider the impact on those who rely on mobile screening solutions, whether on the islands or on the mainland.

On the review of screening frequency and screening age, all those decisions are guided by the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which will be looking at evidence. I am not aware of a change to five-year screening, but should the committee come forward with that recommendation, we would be inclined to accept it, because it would be based on clinical evidence. The UK National Screening Committee looks at all the evidence relating to screening programmes and gives guidance on a four-nations basis, and all four nations tend to follow that guidance.

The Presiding Officer

I regret that, as we are over time, I cannot take any further questions. There will be a short pause before we move to the next portfolio.

Social Justice, Housing and Local Government

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next portfolio is social justice, housing and local government. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question, or indicate so in the chat function by entering the letter R.

Inequalities and Child Poverty (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it is tackling inequalities and child poverty in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. (S6O-00634)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Tackling child poverty is a national mission for this Government and we are making considerable investment to increase family incomes and reduce household costs. In 2020-21, we spent £2.5 billion in targeted support for low-income households, including nearly £1 billion to support low-income families with children. This year, through our Scottish child payment and bridging payments, we will put around £130 million directly into the pockets of low-income families across Scotland who need it most, including in the member’s constituency. We will further increase the support that is available to families by doubling the Scottish child payment to £20 per week from April this year.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her detailed answer.

On 11 January, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee heard Unison join with the Tories to complain that the Scottish budget will do nothing to reduce inequalities in Scotland.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the Scottish Government has spent £594 million on mitigating the budget cuts that the Tory Government imposed on the poorest people in Scotland, which includes £83 million to pay for the bedroom tax alone? Will she also confirm that we will continue to fund child support payments and expand the school clothing grant and free school meals in my constituency? Will she confirm that those measures are just a few examples of how the Scottish National Party Government is directly tackling child poverty and inequality in Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I confirm that, and I confirm that the 2022-23 Scottish budget continues significant investment to tackle poverty and inequality and strengthen public services, including more than £3.9 billion towards benefits expenditure, which will provide support to more than

1 million people in Scotland. We are also investing £831.5 million towards the delivery of affordable housing, £65 million for employability support and the first £50 million of the whole family wellbeing fund. We will continue to fund the expansion of free lunches and the provision of free meals during school holidays to the children who most need them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take a supplementary question. I note that the question related to child poverty in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley; I also note that both the questioner and the cabinet secretary widened out the subject matter.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Only one in four eligible children will get the Scottish child payment at the £20 rate: 170,000 children will not get the new rate because they are on bridging payments, and 125,000 children will not get anything at all.

Those children need the extra money. Will the cabinet secretary say whether she will double the bridging payment for those families?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As Pam Duncan-Glancy knows, she and I had an exchange about that at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee last week, when

I told her that we are fully committed to rolling out the Scottish child payment to under-16s by the end of 2022 and that, until full roll-out, we will continue to deliver the innovative bridging payments of £520 a year, making use of local authority data to deliver immediate support to around 150,000 children at a cost of £78 million a year.

We have gone as far as we can with the doubling of the Scottish child payment to £20 from April 2022. Of course, if Pam Duncan-Glancy or anyone else wants to discuss amendments to the budget, I am sure that we can do that, but members will have to show from where in the budget the additional money would come.

Unsafe Cladding (Help for Residents)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to help residents in flats that have unsafe cladding. (S6O-00635)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We are committed to ensuring the safety of people in homes with unsafe cladding. We are progressing with our single building assessment and cladding remediation programme, which is free to home owners, and 25 high-priority residential blocks of flats have already been selected for the initial phase of the programme. Inspections are under way and we expect the first completed reports soon. We expect that the majority of buildings will be shown to be safe. Where issues are found, we will seek appropriate solutions for remediation and urge other parties, such as developers, to play their part.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

We have been pressing the Scottish Government to take action on the matter for years and it has failed to do so. Thousands of Scots are trapped in unsafe flats, with little hope of ever selling them.

Last week, in England, Michael Gove put developers on notice. They have two months to agree to a funding scheme, or measures could be put into law. What is happening here? Clauses in the Building Safety Bill will allow the United Kingdom Government to introduce a levy on developers of high-rise buildings. What is happening here? Why has flammable cladding still not been banned in Scotland? When will it be banned?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

That is quite a misrepresentation of the position. The single—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me for a second, cabinet secretary.

I do not want all that shouting from a sedentary position. We want to hear the answer from the cabinet secretary, please. Cabinet secretary, please resume.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The single building assessment has been an innovative approach, and it

is being considered in other parts of the United Kingdom. Our assessments will help us to understand the scope and scale of the cladding issues across Scotland.

To reassure people, while the majority of buildings will be shown to be safe, where issues are found we will seek the most appropriate solutions for remediation. We of course want other parties such as developers to continue to play their part where construction is found to be unsafe.

The member mentioned Michael Gove. I have written to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but I have yet to receive any detail on consequentials in addition to the £97.1 million. I will continue to press the secretary of state for details in relation to the original £3.5 billion announcement that was made in the UK budget in February last year. In relation to the announcement of an additional £4 billion on 10 January, which we were notified about only on the day of the announcement, we welcome the announcement on making developers pay, but we need to see the detail of what that means for the Scottish budget. We need to go beyond the £97 million, but we need to know what resources will be coming forward.

We will continue to make the progress that we are making through the innovative single building assessment. I would have thought that members across the chamber would welcome that.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The cabinet secretary has just answered the question that I was going to ask, but I will repeat it. Can she advise us what updates the Scottish Government has had from the UK Government regarding the consequentials that it has promised and we are expecting in order to take the work forward?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, you can give a very brief answer if you feel that you have already answered that question.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said, I am happy to keep Parliament apprised of any response that we get from Michael Gove and the UK Government, but it is important that we can give certainty for the remediation programme beyond the £97 million that we have already committed.

We are determined to progress with the single building assessment and to get the works under way and done, but we need the UK Government to give us clarity on the funding that will be available beyond the £97 million.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This is a Scottish Government responsibility. The minister must understand that flat owners across the country are deeply anxious at the snail’s pace that the Government is moving at. When will we get some progress so that we can give flat owners assurance? What is the date by which the work will be done, and what funding will be forthcoming from the Government?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I do not know whether Willie Rennie heard my first answer, but I said that there is already work under way on the 25 high-priority residential blocks of flats, which were the pilot for the single building assessment, so that we can see what the scale of remediation is likely to be across Scotland. As I said in my initial answer, the inspections are under way, and we expect the first completed report soon.

I would have thought that, when we are getting on and doing something, which other parts of the UK are looking at because it is a good model, that would be welcomed. I am as keen as anyone else in the chamber to make progress, but specific, complex engineering projects have to be undertaken. When we get the completed reports, I will be happy to keep Parliament updated about them.

Covid-19 (Welfare Support for People in Employment)

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how its welfare policies have supported people in employment who have been impacted by Covid-19. (S6O-00636)

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

W

e have a wide range of support available for people in employment and on low incomes. That includes the majority of our social security benefits: our five family payments, discretionary housing payments and the £500 self-isolation support grant. Local authorities have awarded 56,317 self-isolation support grants, totalling £28.2 million, between October 2020 and November 2021. Our Scottish welfare fund has provided almost £63 million to around 60,000 households since March 2020 to help those on low incomes. By October 2021, around 530,000 households had received our £130 low-income pandemic payment, which was an investment of nearly £70 million to assist people in need.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

D

oes the minister agree that the level of statutory sick pay, which is set by the United Kingdom Government at one of the lowest rates in Europe, has been found wanting during the pandemic? Will he join me, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and anti-poverty groups in calling for an increase in statutory sick pay, ensuring that it gives the necessary financial support to those who are unable to work due to Covid-19 and other health conditions?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I would absolutely agree, and because employment law is reserved, we will continue to call on the UK Government to increase statutory sick pay to match the real living wage.

Earlier in the pandemic, the then Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ask the UK Government to make statutory sick pay more responsive. In September last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy wrote to the chancellor, asking him to reconsider the closure of the statutory sick pay rebate scheme. We are in agreement that the current level is not fit for purpose, and we will continue to make that point to the UK Government at appropriate opportunities.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

One of the few positives to come out of the pandemic is that flexible working from home has become more mainstream. It suits many disabled people. Will the minister commit to engaging with employers and reporting back to Parliament on how we can continue to foster that inclusive working style post-pandemic, while taking into account issues of isolation, loneliness and social participation?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank Jeremy Balfour for raising those important points, and I agree with the sentiment behind his question. I would like to take that suggestion away and engage further with Mr Balfour and the finance and economy ministers to consider the points that he has raised.

Local Authority Decision Making (Support)

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support local authorities to make decisions on local services based on local priorities. (S6O-00637)

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Local authorities are independent corporate bodies with their own powers and responsibilities. The Scottish Government has committed to supporting councils with a finance settlement of over £12.5 billion in 2022-23. That represents a cash increase of £917.9 million, or 7.9 per cent, which is the equivalent of a real-terms increase of 5.1 per cent.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Analysis by the Scottish Parliament information centre shows that almost 18 per cent of councils’ budgets is ring fenced for Scottish Government initiatives, which is a steep rise from just 4 per cent in 2018-19. Why has ring fencing increased by over four times in recent years? Does the minister acknowledge that that reduces the ability of councils to deliver services based on local needs?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Although ring-fenced funding is meant to increase investment in services such as our schools and nurseries, local authorities have autonomy to allocate 93 per cent—£11.6 billion—of the funding that we provide, plus all locally raised income.

However, the Scottish Government recognises that local authorities have repeatedly called for the removal of ring fencing in the settlement and for a greater focus on trust and partnership working. On that basis, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, has committed to reviewing all ring-fenced funding as part of the forthcoming resource spending review. We would welcome constructive engagement from local government in that process to ensure that the removal of any ring fencing goes hand in hand with achieving our shared priorities and outcomes, while also ensuring maximum value for money.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Social Justice and Fairness Commission, of which I had the pleasure of being deputy convener, reported last year. It recommended an increased use of participatory budgeting in local government to ensure that local people had a greater say in their local communities and felt that there was greater local accountability and that their communities reflected their needs. Would the Scottish Government support an expansion of that?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The Scottish Government certainly does support participatory budgeting as one mechanism for involving people in decision making. In my constituency, I have seen the significant success of participatory budgeting in the Leith Chooses initiative. Our national participatory budgeting support programme has enabled more than 122,000 voters to have a direct say on the disbursal of more than £6.6 million. We will continue to work with the national participatory budgeting strategic group, which has produced the framework for the future of participatory budgeting in Scotland, with a particular focus on health and wellbeing, education, housing and climate change.

Affordable Homes (2032 Target)

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to build 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. (S6O-00638)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Scotland has led the way in the delivery of affordable housing across the United Kingdom and I am proud of our record of delivering more than 105,000 affordable homes since 2007.

We remain committed to our target of delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. To support that aim, our draft budget increase of £174 million for affordable housing brings investment in 2022-23 to £831 million and total investment across this parliamentary session to £3.6 billion. That means that we can continue the important work, started in 2007, of ensuring that everyone in Scotland has a warm, safe and affordable place to live.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Affordable housing is particularly important in Edinburgh, where the average house price has now surpassed £300,000 for the first time. However, affordable housing statistics that were published last week show that only 822 affordable homes were completed in Edinburgh in 2020-21. That is a drop of more than 35 per cent on the previous year.

Homes for Scotland has warned of flaws in the City of Edinburgh Council’s proposed city plan 2030 and says that it will not be able to meet the housing demand in the coming years. Will the Government step up investment in affordable housing? Will the cabinet secretary guarantee that councils such as the City of Edinburgh Council will be able to access the grant funding that they need to meet local housing demand?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Edinburgh will benefit from investment of £233.8 million towards the delivery of more good-quality affordable homes. That is an increase of £32.4 million on the previous five years.

Sue Webber talked about progress over 2020-21. I point out that, during that time, the affordable housing programme was hit by the pause in non-essential construction from 23 March to 10 June. Construction then resumed in a safer, slower way in line with social distancing guidelines but, of course, that had an impact on the pace of the delivery of affordable homes whether in Edinburgh or anywhere else. I am sure that Sue Webber and most reasonable people listening understand that.

Progress is picking up again. As I said in my initial answer, we are determined to make progress on the delivery of affordable homes in Edinburgh and elsewhere.

I make the point that the Government’s per capita spending on affordable housing is more than three times higher than the UK Government’s. We will continue to prioritise the delivery of affordable homes, which is in stark contrast to the Government south of the border.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

What work is under way with local partners regarding the 11,000 affordable homes that are secured for remote, rural and island communities?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

With £3.6 billion of funding in place for this parliamentary session, we are working closely with partners to plan the delivery of affordable homes in rural, remote and island communities. Our demand-led rural and islands housing fund is supporting community groups and others that are not able to access the main affordable housing supply programme. We have committed to develop a remote, rural and islands housing action plan informed by a wide range of stakeholders, including community representatives, as that will be vital to ensuring that the plan delivers for more remote rural and island communities.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Rent payments are the single biggest cost for many households. Year on year, rent increases from social landlords squeeze already stretched family budgets. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that affordable housing is truly affordable?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I welcome Ruth Maguire back to the Parliament. It is great to see her here.

We have a clear interest in housing association rent affordability. That is even more the case given the pandemic, which for many people has caused hardship and increased living costs.

Individual social landlords are legally required to consult their tenants on any rent increases, and to strike the best balance between rent levels and meeting the housing needs of local communities. The Scottish social housing charter requires landlords to take account of what current and prospective tenants are likely to be able to afford, and the Scottish Housing Regulator monitors rent levels and rent affordability.

We are considering how to build on the strong work on rent setting in the social rented sector that has already been put in place as part of the rented sector strategy that we are currently consulting on. Lastly, we have committed to develop a shared understanding of housing affordability that is fit for the future and takes account of the real costs of housing.

Homeless Accommodation (Rural Communities)

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to provide homeless accommodation in rural communities. (S6O-00639)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Providing a suitable home for everyone is at the heart of our “Housing to 2040” strategy, and we are providing local authorities with investment of £53.5 million over 2018 to 2024 to tackle homelessness and move people as quickly as possible into settled accommodation with the right support.

Communities will also be supported by the continuation of the rural and islands housing fund, which is backed by £30 million of investment in the current session of Parliament. We have committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which 70 per cent will be for social rent and 10 per cent will be in remote, rural and island communities.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Many of my constituents cannot access homeless accommodation in rural areas at all and are having to move into the city of Stirling, where they are remote from work and family support. How will the Scottish Government support councils to provide homeless accommodation where it is needed?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said, more than £53.3 million of resource planning assumptions have been allocated to Stirling Council’s affordable housing supply programme for five years up to 2025-26, and we are providing up to £30 million in the current session of Parliament for the demand-led rural and islands housing fund.

As I said, we are developing an action plan for remote, rural and island housing. Stirling Council has received more than £430,000 to develop and implement its rapid rehousing transition plan between 2019-20 and 2021-22 and will receive an allocation of £132,000 for 2022-23. That funding helps to prevent homelessness and provide settled accommodation to homeless households.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Last year, there were more than 27,000 households in Scotland assessed as being homeless, while 47,000 homes, valued at £8 billion, lay empty, including in rural areas. Compulsory purchase powers are no use to councils without fair funding.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s “Housing to 2040” proposal to establish a new fund to enable local authorities to bring empty homes back into residential use. Can the minister confirm by what date the fund will be ready to receive applications from councils, and how much it will make available in its first year of operation?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We are determined to bring as many empty homes as possible back into operation. The empty homes officers, who have been working in local authorities to identify empty homes, have been doing a really good job.

I am happy to keep the member informed once we are in a position to announce the beginning of the empty homes fund, the timeframe that we will be working to and the amount of money that will be in the fund. I will keep the member updated on that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There are two more questions listed in the

Business Bulletin

. I am keen to take them both, so I would appreciate succinct questions and answers.

Fire Safety Regulations (Compliance)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on whether all homes are on track to comply with the new fire safety regulations by February. (S6O-00640)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The regulations were introduced to protect lives and property, and to bring owner-occupied and social rented properties into line with the private rented sector and with new-build homes. We encourage everyone to install the alarms. As the regulations are not yet in force, information will be collected in the next Scottish house condition survey. As we have consistently said, the legislation says that work should be done within a reasonable period that takes into account individual circumstances, and no home owner will be penalised if they are unable to do the work.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the minister for her answer, but it is pretty shocking, given that the regulations were delayed by a year because of a lack of publicity about them during the pandemic. If the minister cannot tell me how many homes are now compliant, could she at least tell me how many people have received financial support from the fund that was allocated, given the cost of installing fire alarms in people’s homes to meet the regulations and the fact that the Scottish Government underestimated that cost?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In my statement, which is the next item of business, I will outline the publicity that there has been on the issue and, indeed, the awareness that is out there. I will cover that in some detail.

We have put £1.5 million into care and repair and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to support homeowners who might have struggled to put those appliances in place. From the most recent figures, I think that around 2,000 people have been supported in one way or another through the care and repair service, but I will go into more detail on that in my statement.

Scottish Child Payment (Kirkcaldy)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how many families in the Kirkcaldy constituency have received the new Scottish child payment. (S6O-00641)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We do not publish statistics on the Scottish child payment by constituency. However, we have data at local authority level which shows that just over 8,700 applications from clients in Fife had been approved for the Scottish child payment between the opening of applications in November 2020 and September 2021. The statistics are published quarterly and those figures are based on the most recently available official statistics, which cover the period up to the end of September 2021. Doubling the payment to £20 from April 2022 underlines our commitment to deliver on the national mission to tackle child poverty.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

The Scottish child payment has already made a huge impact

and the doubling of the payment shows that the Scottish Government is committed to using the limited powers that it has to tackle child poverty. As we look ahead into 2022, can the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government will provide further financial support to people with the roll-out of new devolved benefits?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We are committing over £3.9 billion for benefit expenditure in 2022-23, providing support to over 1 million people in Scotland by March of next year. That includes doubling and extending the Scottish child payment, which is forecast to benefit 334,000 children by the end of 2022; our new low-income winter heating assistance, which will guarantee a £50 payment to around 400,000 low-income households from next winter; and replacing the United Kingdom Government’s personal independence payment with the new adult disability payment from next summer, benefiting around 20,000 people in 2022-23, rising to over 400,000 in 2024-25.

Fire Alarm Standards

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on strengthened fire alarm standards. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement. There should be no interventions or interruptions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The law on fire alarms

is changing from 1 February in Scotland. There have been calls for a further delay to the legislation but, having considered the balance of risks, I am clear that it is not right to delay legislation that is designed to protect and save lives.

Ensuring that people are safe from the risk of fire in their homes is a key priority for the Scottish Government. The improved standards will reduce the risk of injury and death from house fires. One death from fire in Scotland’s homes is one death too many.

Following the tragedy at Grenfell, the Scottish Government carried out a public consultation in 2017, which showed strong support for a new minimum standard for fire and smoke detectors across all housing, regardless of tenure. The legislation brings all homes to the same standard. For example, it ensures that social rented homes have the same fire safety standards as those that have already been in law for nearly a decade for the private rented sector. It also ensures that owner-occupied homes have the same safety standards as those that new-build homes have had for nearly 15 years.

The standard means that, from 1 February, all houses should have interlinked alarms, with one smoke alarm in the living room, one in each hallway and on each landing, a heat alarm in the kitchen and a carbon monoxide detector in each room that has a carbon-fuelled appliance, such as a gas boiler or fire. The alarms will support greater fire safety and prevent avoidable death.

Having interlinked alarms means that, when an alarm goes off in one part of the house, the rest also go off. For example, if someone is sleeping in a bedroom away from the kitchen where a fire starts, they will be alerted to the danger because all the alarms will go off. Interlinked alarms are very similar to the fire alarms that people already have, but the important interlinking provides extra safety. Although they can be wired into homes, most are battery operated, like the fire alarms that people have now, and they can communicate with one another.

Figures from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service show that, from 2020 to 2021, there were 44 deaths due to house fires in Scotland. In the four years from 2014 to 2018, for situations where fatalities were recorded, on average, 30 per cent of fires started in the living room and 15 per cent started in the kitchen. In 52 per cent of domestic fire incidents, a smoke alarm alerted occupants to the fact that there was a fire, which gave people a greater chance of escape. Interlinked fire and smoke alarms increase the chance of people being alerted more quickly, because they all go off simultaneously, regardless of where the fire starts. That is why we have introduced the same standards for all properties.

We are asking the social rented sector to make the change for its tenants and we know that that work is well progressed. We are also asking people who own their homes to take the step. The Scottish Government has already made more than £15 million of loan funding available for social landlords to procure and install the necessary alarms, which should help to ensure that social tenants are safe in their homes.

At an expected average cost of around £220, and sometimes less, I hope that the new fire alarm standard will be viewed as part of on-going improvements for people who own their homes. The improvement will protect their property and, importantly, can save lives. However, I know that people are feeling the cost-of-living squeeze right now and might feel that they do not have the money available, so I will make two points.

First, for those who own their home and are at high risk of fire or are elderly or disabled, we have provided £1.5 million, through the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Care and Repair Scotland, to support home owners to have appropriate alarms fitted.

Secondly, local authorities have the duty to ensure compliance with the standards in their area, and they will be taking a proportionate and measured approach to compliance. They will take individual circumstances into account and reflect the evolving situation with the Covid-19 pandemic. I can be absolutely clear that there are no penalties for non-compliance and that no one will be penalised if they need more time, although I strongly encourage all home owners to make the changes and benefit from the improved protection against loss of life and property in the event of a fire. We progressed a full awareness-raising campaign through 2021, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has confirmed that there will be a measured and proportionate approach to compliance.

The changes, including the change to the timing of implementation, have been carefully considered and consulted on over a number of years. Following the Grenfell tower fire, the Scottish Government undertook a review of Scotland’s building and fire safety regulatory frameworks. As part of that work, we prioritised a consultation on fire and smoke alarms. The consultation went ahead in 2017, with a wide range of respondents. There was very strong support for a new common minimum standard for fire and smoke detectors across all housing. People told us that they were in favour of swift action, with a proposed one-year period for the introduction of regulations but, in response to specific concerns from some stakeholders about the time that was needed to carry out the work, ministers agreed that the regulations should allow a period of two years for compliance.

The regulations introducing the new standards were unanimously supported by members of the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Local Government and Communities Committee on 19 December 2018. The regulations were set in law on 16 January 2019 and were intended to come into force on 1 February 2021.

However, in the light of the impact of Covid-19 during 2020, there were concerns about how the pandemic would affect home owners’ ability to make changes to their homes in time for the original deadline, so a delay of 12 months was sought by ministers and agreed at the Local Government and Communities Committee meeting on 16 December 2020.

As was stated at that time, a longer delay was not right, as any delay to the regulation would be a delay in a measure to protect lives. That is why we remain committed to bringing in the new standards from 1 February 2022.

I hope that I have already provided reassurance on the need for the measures to improve fire safety in all types of home and to protect lives. Let me address other issues that I have heard raised.

I am aware of concerns about the validity of home insurance policies if compliance with the new legislation is not met, but I assure people that that is not the case. Throughout the legislative process, we have engaged proactively with the Association of British Insurers, which has ensured that its members are aware of the changes. It has stated that, although insurers might ask customers questions about whether their property is fitted with working fire alarms, they are not likely to ask questions about specific standards. Anyone who is unclear on their policy terms and conditions in relation to the new law should speak to their insurer.

Public awareness of the changes to the regulations is now high. Over five weeks in the summer of 2021, the Scottish Government ran an intensive awareness-raising media campaign across television, radio and digital platforms. It reached 95 per cent of all adults across Scotland, with 85 per cent of them seeing the campaign and its vital public information message at least three times. In addition, more than 96,000 printed leaflets have been supplied to libraries across Scotland, we have regularly updated our dedicated website with information and advice, and we distributed an electronic toolkit of resources to key stakeholders.

The campaign was shown by independent researchers to have engaged the target audience, driven awareness of the new legislation and encouraged people to take action. Further research that was carried out in December 2021 showed that 88 per cent of home owners were aware of the new legislation.

We have also made materials available so that MSPs can inform their constituents about the important changes to fire alarms from February this year. Last autumn, I wrote to all MSPs with further information and frequently asked questions. Following this statement, I intend to write again to all MSPs to provide the most up-to-date information in order to support them in responding to questions from constituents.

The increased level of awareness has led to significant public interest in complying with the new standard, which is welcome, but I am aware that there have been challenges in meeting demand, exacerbated by global supply shortages of component parts, and in the supply of suitable tradespeople to carry out work in people’s homes.

My officials have confirmed that, as of this morning, fire alarms are currently available for purchase and delivery where the manufacturer has a United Kingdom supply chain. Some manufacturers of fire alarms continue to have supply chain issues with imported components, which limits the availability of their alarms for immediate purchase. However, as I have said before, the legislation makes allowance for the reasonable additional time that is needed in such a situation.

It is really important that I reiterate that, in setting a new standard for fire alarms for home owners and social landlords, bringing standards in line with those for other types of home, our foremost goal is to protect life and prevent avoidable deaths in the event of a fire.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement.

I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. Any member wishing to ask a question should press their request-to-speak button or type R in the chat function.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. However, there is nothing new in it, which will be of concern to many householders across Scotland.

The cabinet secretary spoke about the awareness campaign and claimed that public awareness of the regulations is now high. However, the Scottish Government’s own evaluation report, which was published this week, shows that one in 10 households—a significant number—is not aware of the new legislation. The regulations were postponed a year ago, which was a welcome step given the outcome of Covid-19 for home owners, particularly elderly and vulnerable home owners who did not want workmen coming into their homes.

Given that the Covid restrictions will not be lifted until Monday, why has the cabinet secretary not heard the call for a further delay? How many households in Scotland does the cabinet secretary believe still need to have the devices fitted? It is important to know, because the regulations come into force in just 13 days.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The important thing here is to get on with supporting and encouraging home owners to put in the devices that could potentially save lives. I hope that we all agree on the importance of doing so.

With regard to people’s awareness of the changes, as I said in my statement, the independent analysis shows that, at the end of last year, 88 per cent of home owners were aware of the new legislation. From my own mail bag, and from the number of people asking questions about the regulations, I know that awareness is high.

On the question about how many households require to have devices fitted, as I said in my response to Sarah Boyack’s portfolio question, we will not know the answer until we have the Scottish household survey, which will ask that question. As I said in my statement, the recommendation had huge backing from the public. The duty is on us to do what we can, because one death from a preventable fire in a home is one too many. If those devices can help to save lives, we should surely all support their installation.

I reiterate that it is an important measure for home owners to take, and we are talking only about home owners here. Private and social tenants will have had the device provided already or will have it provided by their landlord. It is important that home owners prioritise getting a device installed, because it could literally save lives.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

We support this vital fire safety improvement, but, if home owners cannot comply, the measure will not save the lives that we hope it will. A pensioner who called me yesterday, panicking that their insurance will be invalidated, was the latest person I have spoken to who wants to comply but cannot get the kit until March. The Association of British Insurers said that

“Insurers will expect that households and businesses are compliant with any legislation”

but that they are

“not likely to ask questions about specific standards. It will be for individual insurers to decide how they respond to the new standard”.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that insurers will have every right to interpret the legal enforcement date and the standards as those that are in law and that relying on their not being likely to ask questions does not give home owners the assurance that they deserve? Letting that happen when many home owners cannot get access to the alarms is bad policy, so will the cabinet secretary instruct a formal delay and give home owners more time to source the alarms and comply?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

No, that would not be the right thing to do, because there has already been a delay. We are talking about devices that have the potential to save lives. If I delayed further, questions would rightly be asked of me. Given that they are potentially life-saving devices, it would not be right to delay the regulations coming in, but I recognise the issues that the member rightly raises.

I reiterate the work that we have done with the Association of British Insurers, which understands those issues very well. It has discussed those issues with its members and is ensuring that they are aware of the changes. It has stated clearly that, although insurers may ask customers whether a property is fitted with working fire alarms, it is not likely that they would ask about specific standards. That is the practice in the insurance industry.

As I said in my statement, anyone who is unsure or unclear about their policy’s terms and conditions in relation to the new law should, in the first instance, speak to their insurer.

In relation to access to alarms, I recognise that there have been issues over the past few months, but I have asked my officials on a regular basis to check availability in Scotland online through United Kingdom suppliers and through well-known do-it-yourself retailers, and they have told me that the availability of devices has improved and that the cost is around £200 if the home owner fits the alarms.

I also understand that some people might struggle, which is why Care and Repair Scotland has dealt with just short of 2,500 inquiries about fire alarms since September last year and has supported people by installing the devices and through the provision of subsidised alarms to make sure that people who might be struggling can get them.

I will make a final point. Through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities have said they will take a light-touch approach to the enforcement of regulations. Local authorities will not be knocking on people’s doors to check whether they have newly installed fire alarms, because we recognise that some people will take a bit longer, and they will have a reasonable period of time to comply. We have a duty, as elected members, to reiterate the importance of home owners fitting the alarms as quickly as they can.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind all members who wish to ask a question to check that their cards are inserted and that their request-to-speak buttons are pressed.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As the cabinet secretary said in her statement, the law has come about because of the tragic disaster at Grenfell, which led to the deaths of 72 people. Can the cabinet secretary outline what evidence the Scottish Government used to determine that the regulations will protect lives?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We have considered the expert advice that has been provided to us. Interconnected alarms were recommended on the back of work that was done post-Grenfell by the expert group on improving fire safety.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Age Scotland has highlighted for much of the past year the continued anxiety among the public—particularly among older people—regarding letting trades people into their homes, due to the spread of the new strains of Covid.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the prevalence of the virus for much of the past year means that it is simply not reasonable to expect people to meet the February deadline?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I appreciate the concerns that Alexander Stewart has expressed. In some circumstances—when someone does not feel comfortable, as the member has cited, or when someone has been shielding—it is reasonable that people would not be able to meet the deadlines. We understand that point, and I have said throughout that local authorities—which, at the end of the day, are the enforcement agency—understand it too. They will therefore take a light-touch approach to ensure that it is accepted that people might need a bit more time to get the alarms installed, for those reasons or any other reasonable ones.

I hope that the Q and A that MSPs will get, with information that I will provide, will help to answer some of those constituent inquiries.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

How many lives is a full implementation of this specific measure expected to save in a year?

Given the current number of installers and their uneven spread across Scotland, and given the number of people who are unable to install the alarms themselves, how long does the Government anticipate that it will take to install alarms in every owner-occupied house in the country?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said earlier, in 52 per cent of domestic fire incidents, a smoke alarm had alerted occupants to the fact that there was a fire, which gave people a greater chance of escape. Interlinked fire and smoke alarms increase the chance of being alerted more quickly by going off simultaneously regardless of where the fire starts, which undoubtedly will mean that more people are alerted earlier and more lives will be saved in Scotland each year, but it is hard to put a figure on that. That is the advice that experts have given.

With regard to the number of people who will comply and how quickly people will get those alarms fitted, I suspect that the vast majority of people will have alarms fitted before the 1 February deadline. We will know that number as we get the results of the household survey, which will be carried out over the next period. We recognise that a small number of people will require longer. As I said in a previous answer, it is important that people are given a reasonable period of time in which to comply. We will, of course, monitor the situation.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

The Scottish Labour freedom of information request revealed that funding of £500,000 for care and repair services to provide the installation has helped barely 800 people. How many people have been supported so far—not at the end of the financial year—in Edinburgh, and can the cabinet secretary give an estimate of the number of households in Edinburgh who are still to comply with the regulations? Can the cabinet secretary ensure that funding will be given so that all low-income, disabled and pensioner households can comply?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In my previous answer, I said that care and repair services across Scotland have supported

around 2,500 people in one way or another. I do not have the specific figures for Edinburgh, but, if that would be helpful, I am happy to write to the member if that information exists at that level of detail.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

As was previously mentioned, the standards for those interlinked alarms were set nearly 15 years ago for new builds and nearly a decade ago for the private sector. I agree that all houses should have the same standards. Why did the regulations take longer to introduce?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In 2013, the Scottish Government published a sustainable housing strategy with a commitment to developing a new cross-tenure standard for housing. Since then, we have engaged with stakeholders to develop our proposal for a new housing standard for Scotland, based on housing as a human right, and we will seek views on that in a public consultation later this year.

Following the tragic fire at Grenfell in 2016, the Scottish Government made a commitment to accelerating the fire alarm elements of that new standard. The regulations, which were introduced to Parliament in 2018, will achieve that aim.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister really must stop saying that the alarms can be installed for £220 or less, because the figures are often far higher, and she knows that all too well.

Is this not a prime example of the Government’s ability to talk a good game but inability to deliver? The Opposition even gave the Government an extra year to get this done, but it was still not possible. Lives could be at risk, so what has the Government got so badly wrong with this installation programme?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I do not accept that characterisation of the situation at all. There was a delay because of Covid, and that was a good reason—

it was supported by members across the chamber.

I have made it clear that the £220 is for the purchase of the alarm system and that the installation costs will be on top of that. However, most households will be able to install the alarms themselves. However, given that disability or age or whatever other issues might mean that people require support, we gave £1.5 million to Care and Repair and to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service so that they can help more vulnerable people to get their alarms installed. I would have thought that Willie Rennie would support that.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

A number of constituents have raised concerns about understanding the alarm requirements, and their availability and cost. Although I welcome the assurance that council enforcement will be light touch, how will the Scottish Government track progress on meeting the standard?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said earlier, the Scottish house condition survey collects information on homes and minimum standards for housing. The legislation will add adequate provision of fire alarms to that minimum standard, so that future iterations of the survey will collect data on compliance with that element of housing standards.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I do not know where the cabinet secretary’s officials shop, but I have just checked and every B&Q in Edinburgh has no availability until after the relevant date. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could ask officials where they shop.

I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s definition of “a bit more time” and “reasonable time”. What do they mean in practice? Is it days, weeks or months?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In a previous answer, I was clear about online retailers with UK supply chains and DIY retailers. I take Jeremy Balfour’s point about Edinburgh, but there are online retailers available with UK supply chains that can supply these devices. My officials check that regularly—

they checked it this morning.

I would have thought that Jeremy Balfour and other members would want to focus on supporting people to comply when they can, and to make sure that, in our dialogue with constituents, we reassure people that, if they need more time and if they are struggling to get a device because of availability issues in their area, that is a reasonable reason for having more time.

A “reasonable period” in legislation is never defined, as Jeremy Balfour will know. It is a reasonable period in the individual’s circumstances. I would, however, hope that Jeremy Balfour and other members will reassure people that they will not be criminalised and hounded by local authority enforcement but we expect that, when they can, at the earliest opportunity, they will prioritise putting in these potentially life-saving alarms.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing advance sight of her statement, and I welcome the introduction of the regulations next month. Everyone should have at least that level of protection in their home, regardless of tenure.

Could the cabinet secretary say a little more about the implications of non-compliance, as there are no penalties for non-compliance, other than missing out on potentially life-saving measures? What are the key issues that people need to be aware of if they do not follow the regulations?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The key issue is that the safety of such people will not be as enhanced as that of those who have interlinked fire safety devices. We know, because the experts have told us, that having such devices could save lives. Therefore, I would have thought that the message from all of us, first and foremost, would be that people should comply as quickly as they can.

However, the member is right—there are no penalties, as such, for non-compliance. Local authorities have a duty to ensure compliance, but they will not do that by knocking on people’s doors. That said, we are expecting people, as home owners, to make this a priority and to put the installation of such fire alarms above other things.

We understand that there are issues that will mean that people will require to have more time to have such devices installed. In response to a number of questions, I have explained what reasonable excuses, or reasonable reasons for needing more time, would be. The message to people is that they should do it as quickly as they can, because it could be life saving for them and their families.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Many local authorities, including West Lothian Council, have removed care and repair services. Some constituents tell me that installers are scarce and that component shortages are delaying delivery of alarms that they had already ordered. In addition, cost-of-living pressures are causing practical and financial challenges.

Are there any other proactive actions that could be taken to help to resolve the real challenges that are being faced by some but by no means all home owners in getting private sector dwellings up to the same, important safety standards as other sectors? An example of such an action would be a public statement of assurance by the Association of British Insurers about where delays in the installation of such devices will leave people in the coming weeks.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

All local authorities

have broad discretionary powers to provide assistance to home owners where work is needed to look after homes or to meet statutory standards. Local authorities are best placed to decide what assistance is provided to meet local priorities using local resources.

The additional support that we have provided to Care and Repair is targeted at assisting owners who are least able to fit alarms themselves. It is not intended to be a substitute for local initiatives by local authorities.

As regards any statements by the ABI, I understand that it has been communicating actively with its members to make them aware of the situation. I am happy to have regular dialogue with the ABI as to whether there is anything more that it can do in providing public-facing messages in the lead-up to the requirements coming into force on 1 February.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

After Christine Grahame, Graham Simpson will be the last MSP I am able to call. I ask for succinct questions and answers, so that I can get both members in.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

As the cabinet secretary is aware, I wrote to her last year to raise many of the concerns that have been iterated today, so I welcome her statement. However, £200 is an optimistic figure, even for just the kit. Some people are paying £500 for supply and fit for a two-up, two-down property.

How can vulnerable and elderly people access the financial support from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that the cabinet secretary mentioned? I was not aware that it was providing such support.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will make sure that that information is included in the circular that goes out to members. Care and Repair and the Fire and Rescue Service are providing practical advice and support to vulnerable people. We have had very good feedback on that support.

For brevity, as I said, I will make sure that the relevant information is included in the circular that is provided to members.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The penalty for non-compliance will come if people have insurance claims turned down because they do not have such alarms. Is the cabinet secretary seriously saying that that will not happen?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I ask the member to remember what we are talking about here. We are talking about the installation of devices that the experts have told us could potentially save lives. I would have thought that that would have been the overriding concern and priority for every member of the Parliament.

On insurance, I could not have been clearer about what the ABI has said. It is a requirement to have working fire alarms. However, it does not specify the standards for those. It has been clear—that is what industry has told us. However, at the end of the day, everybody should make sure that they get in touch with their own insurance company if they have concerns.

I would have thought that some members—whether Graham Simpson or anyone else—would at least have welcomed the fact that this measure could potentially save lives. I find it extraordinary that members seem to be against these measures being brought in. I would hope that, in their communication with constituents, the first part of their communication is to reiterate the importance of complying, because this could be a lifesaving measure. That is what I would ask them all to do. The information that I will provide after the statement will help them to ensure that they provide that accurate information to their constituents.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the statement. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Local Government Funding

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-02838, in the name of Miles Briggs, on protecting local government funding in Scotland. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button or enter R in the chat function now or as soon as possible. I advise the chamber that we are very tight for time. I would therefore be grateful if members could stick to their time allocation and note that we will probably have to accommodate any interventions in those allocations.

I call Miles Briggs to speak to and move the motion for around seven minutes.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I open today’s Scottish Conservative debate on local government finance by thanking all those who work in our local authorities across Scotland. It is incredibly important that we thank them for what they have done during the pandemic in going the extra mile

to support all our communities.

Today’s debate is an important one for Parliament to consider, because this Scottish National Party-Green budget is not acceptable and will not help services to recover from the pandemic.

After 15 years of this SNP Government underfunding local government in Scotland, there is increasing concern over the long-term financial sustainability of local government finances and the problems facing our Scottish councils that have been allowed to build up under this Government with no reform or leadership shown by SNP ministers. Put simply, council leaders across Scotland have nothing else that they can cut to save money and balance their books.

How we adequately fund local government is vitally important, which I think we all agree on. For many individuals and families, the local services that they depend on are delivered by their council. SNP ministers have underfunded councils for many years. From 2007 to 2019, the Scottish Government’s budget increased at more than double the rate of the grant that SNP ministers passed on to local councils.

The question today is therefore a simple one: why have SNP ministers delivered such a poor financial settlement again this year?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I respect Miles Briggs’s position on supplementing the local government budget. Where would he take it from?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member give way?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Very, very briefly.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Miles Briggs will note that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that, year on year,

the Scottish budget is down 5.2 per cent accounting for inflation. I want to see a fair settlement for local government that is also inflation proof. However, for him to be consistent, does he not reckon that the UK Government needs to make sure that the Scottish budget is inflation proof, too?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

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.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the minister to speak to and move amendment S6M-02838.2.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I welcome the debate. As Miles Briggs has done—and I am sure that many others will do—I recognise the crucial role that councils play in delivering public services and supporting communities, and the part that they play in delivering a national recovery. We might disagree at times, but I hope that we can all agree on that.

Ultimately, today, we are talking about difficult budget choices. Core to this afternoon’s debate is the fact that the Scottish budget in 2022-23 is lower than it was in 2021-22. That is not my conclusion and nor is it that of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy; it is the conclusion of the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission, which said in its report “Scotland’s Economic and Fiscal Forecasts”:

“Overall the Scottish Budget in 2022-23 is 2.6 per cent lower than in 2021-22, and after accounting for inflation the reduction is 5.2 per cent.”

The point was made in the intervention by my colleague Neil Gray.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Can the minister give us a comparison with the budget two years ago, given that last year, of course, we had a huge increase because of Covid spend?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I note that it was about two years ago that my colleague Kenny Gibson raised in the Parliament the issue of a new virus that had been detected in China—

I think that that was the first mention of the virus in the Parliament. The difference between now and two years ago is that we are still in the teeth of a global pandemic. I appreciate that Mr Lumsden’s colleagues in Westminster might be waving their masks in the chamber because they think that the pandemic is over, but the reality is that the pandemic is certainly not over and that a huge amount of recovery work will have to be undertaken. That has to be taken into account in the settlement that this Government is given from Westminster.

Despite a 5.2 per cent reduction, the Scottish budget delivers record funding of £18 billion for health and social care, doubles the Scottish child payment and introduces free bus travel for everyone under the age of 22. It delivers an overall settlement to local government that is worth more than £12.5 billion—an increase of £588.2 million in real terms.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the minister give way?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I will give way to Mr Briggs in a moment.

In the context of a 5.2 per cent real-terms reduction in the overall budget, the local government settlement has increased by 5.1 per cent, again in real terms. The growth in the overall settlement was acknowledged by the COSLA resource spokesperson in evidence to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee last week.

Having taken the decision to pass on all front-line health and care consequentials in full, we protected local government by providing a flat-cash core budget, alongside a further £1.4 billion, which is transferred from other portfolios, for joint priorities. By definition, a flat-cash core allocation does not take account of inflation. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has acknowledged that we cannot inflation proof any part of the Scottish Government budget, such is the nature of inflation right now. We do not underestimate the challenges that the allocation presents, but it is simply not possible to inflation proof all budget lines when the overall budget is not inflation proofed.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am afraid that I need to make a wee bit more progress; I will take an intervention from Mr Briggs in a moment.

In acknowledging the challenges, we must also be honest about the fact that pay increases and changes in the design of national insurance are themselves inflationary pressures. It is therefore not correct to claim that there is a real-terms cut to the local government budget while claiming that no account is taken of pay inflation or increased employer national insurance contributions.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I said that I would take an intervention from Miles Briggs, as he requested one first.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

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?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I recognise that the challenges that we face in our budget are ultimately a reflection of the challenges that we face as a consequence of the UK Government’s settlement to the Scottish Parliament.

Let us get to the core point. Funding that is handed on to local government is funding that is not handed on elsewhere. I recognise that some members might disagree with the Government’s decisions to pass on the front-line health and social care consequentials in full, to help to tackle child poverty and inequality by doubling the game-changing Scottish child payment, to provide more than £500 million to councils to support investment in health and social care, to allocate £145 million extra for additional teachers and support staff and to support the expansion of free school meals, with an extra £60 million in revenue and £30 million in capital funding.

We take the view that those are not just Scottish Government priorities but joint priorities with local government, and I believe that they attract cross-party support in this Parliament. However, if Opposition parties do not agree with those investments, they are fully entitled to propose alternative—but balanced—funding proposals ahead of consideration of the Budget (Scotland) Bill next week.

The budget also provides councils with a number of flexibilities, including over council tax rate setting, as they requested, and we have reaffirmed our commitment to developing a local government fiscal framework in partnership with COSLA. I want to be clear that any framework must be developed in partnership with local government. It must be workable and must learn lessons from the implementation of the broader Scottish fiscal framework. Crucially, it cannot put funding for the national health service at risk.

It will be important for local government to bring forward fiscal framework proposals that can be explored in partnership. There is no reason why those proposals need only come from local government, however. In that regard, I note the Conservatives’ motion. I welcome the contribution that Miles Briggs is making. I hope that other Conservative members—perhaps Mr Briggs or Ms Smith in summing up later in the debate—can provide more detail about how what they propose would work in practice. Clearly, there would be significant consequences elsewhere in the budget.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must now conclude.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I again welcome the debate, and I am looking forward to the contributions of members from across the chamber.

I move amendment S6M-02838.2, to leave out from “calls made” to end and insert:

“key role that councils play in their communities and their part in delivering a national recovery; recognises that the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission has stated that overall the 2022-23 Scottish Budget has reduced in real terms by 5.2%; notes that this is in spite of continued COVID-19 and inflationary pressures on public services; welcomes the Scottish Government’s Budget for 2022-23, which, despite these challenges, includes record funding of £18 billion for Health and Social Care, doubles the Scottish Child Payment, introduces free bus travel for everyone under the age of 22, and delivers a fair settlement worth over £12.5 billion of funding to local authorities; recognises that the total local government settlement has increased by £588.2 million, or 5.1% in real terms, including specific funding for social care, education and employability support, and welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to developing a fiscal framework for local government and delivering a citizens’ assembly on sources of local government funding.”

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Here we are again: another debate about local government budgets, another SNP budget, another devastating raid on council budgets that provide absolutely vital local services, another £371 million gone from the core revenue budget in real terms and a further 4 per cent being ring fenced. The Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth and many of his ministerial colleagues have stood up and said how much they value local government and local government workers. I think that it was President Biden who said:

“Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you”.

Local government workers and people who rely on local government services hear what it values loud and clear from the Government.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I assume that Mark Griffin wants the local government settlement to go up. Every penny is allocated, so where would the money come from in the budget?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is clear that the Scottish Government’s budget has increased. We are asking for the—

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Where would he take the money from?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

We are asking for the Scottish Government to respect local government. I grant that the

Accounts Commission has said that, since 2013-14,

Scottish Government

budgets have reduced

by 0.8 per cent. At the same time, however, the Scottish Government has hammered local government by cutting its budgets by 4.7 per cent, thereby magnifying every single budget cut that it has been passed by the Tories and hammering local services.

We will support the motion, because we believe that it is simply unsustainable for the SNP to continue cutting council budgets to the bone. Services are already at breaking point.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Will the member give way?

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I would normally take as many interventions as members would like to make, but I have only five minutes.

Today the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that tax rises are inevitable and that cuts are inevitable, unless, as the motion asks for, the Government delivers an improved financial settlement. Those are not choices; they are SNP cuts that have been forced on local government as part of a sustained campaign that has been going on for a decade and has cost services £937 million since 2013.

Were the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill to be enforced, the Government would clearly be in breach of it.

There are a couple of differences this year compared with what has happened in the previous decade. The minister’s and the cabinet secretary’s SNP council colleagues have finally said in public what they have been saying behind closed doors for a decade: they cannot cope with any more cuts.

We know that the Greens, who are in the Government, have signed off on the cuts, so the cabinet secretary has no chance to find that extra couple of hundred million pounds for a deal.

Most concerning of all is that we are in the grip of the biggest cost-of-living crisis in years. Inflation is at its highest level in five years, and the cabinet secretary took to the radio this morning to say that she could not inflation proof budgets, and that it is inflation’s doing that ring-fenced spending has increased, having jumped from 58 per cent to 62 per cent this year. That is what she said, but she could not say who caused the portion of the budget with which councils have maximum flexibility for delivering local priorities to fall. It is worth knowing that, in 2013, controlled spend was just 25 per cent. It is almost as if the SNP Government wants us to forget that local councils are democratically elected and are accountable to their voters.

The cabinet secretary also said that only 7 per cent of the budget is ring fenced for grants for SNP Government projects, but even by that count—which I dispute—the amount has, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, grown from 0.1 per cent of the budget in 2013, or by 70 times.

We agree that local government needs a fiscal framework in order that it can make the decisions that are best for local communities, but we are alive to fears that that could bake in a decade of cuts. Our amendment seeks to qualify the percentage that the Conservative motion proposes, because we cannot accept continued pernicious ring fencing to take place within that set proportion of the Scottish budget.

Finally, the issue of local government staff pay must be heard. The budget is disastrous for the tireless army of local government workers. Not only do they have the task of implementing yet more cuts, but they are doing so in spite of the exhausting task of having kept the country moving through two years of the pandemic. Youth link community workers, carers, cleansing staff, teaching assistants, street cleaners and so many more have worked flat out to keep going the services that we have all relied on and clapped for. However, 55 per cent of them earn below £25,000 per annum. In the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee last week, Johanna Baxter of Unison told us how angry and frustrated they are, and that councils will see a “difficult industrial landscape ahead”.

I ask the Government to reconsider and to deliver a budget that can deliver a fair pay increase for staff and a fair settlement for local authorities.

I move, as amendment to motion S6M-02838, to insert at end:

“; believes that this set percentage of the Scottish Government budget each year should be for essential and non-ringfenced services to afford local councils maximum flexibility in delivering local priorities; notes that the 2022-23 offer comes on top of the damaging effects of a cumulative Scottish Government cut to local authority revenue budgets of £937 million between 2013-14 and 2021-22, and agrees that the heroic effort of local government workers to keep the country going during the COVID-19 pandemic must be recognised in the 2022-23 financial settlement from the Scottish Government, giving local authorities the opportunity to offer a fair pay settlement to their staff.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We have learned something new today, which is that Kenny Gibson discovered Covid.

We already knew that local government has been on the rough end of the SNP Government’s priorities for years. This year’s budget is no different from all the rest, as Mr Gibson knows. We get the usual conjurer’s trick from ministers, who send ring-fenced parcels of money to local councils for new tasks and claim that that money is for old tasks. The money goes up, but the costs of the new responsibilities go even higher, which leaves councils to cut other services.

This year’s funding settlement is harsher than most, with hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts. That is why councillors of all political persuasions, including the SNP, are so angry this year. While other services across the UK have been compensated for the national insurance increase, local government in Scotland has been left with a big hole in the finances.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have only four minutes, although I would have loved to take an intervention.

When the roads are full of potholes, the streets are covered in rubbish, schools do not have the funds that they need and community services are shut, there is just one place where local government should look, and that is the SNP Government sitting in St Andrews house.

Meanwhile, the SNP’s 15-year-old plan to scrap the unfair council tax has not moved 1 inch forward. I have attended endless Government talking shops on that. If hot air could scrap the council tax, we would have a new tax every year. However, that is all going to change now: I have a new great hope, because the Greens are in Government. I am looking forward to the forthcoming bill to scrap the council tax, led by Patrick Harvie. We all live in great hope of new times.

Today we have a rehash of last year’s Conservative motion. They have not learned from their mistakes. We all remember that, in the past, when the UK Government has allocated Barnett consequentials for health, the Scottish Conservatives have wanted it to be guaranteed for health. Well—not any more. In 2018, Prime Minister Theresa May said that she would increase national health service funding, which would mean £2 billion of consequentials for the Scottish Government by 2023. Back then, the Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell—remember those glory days?—said, “I urge” the First Minister and

“the Scottish government to invest this extra money in improving health services”.

With the motion, all of that would be out of the window. Under the Conservatives’ plan, between 2018 and 2023 more than £600 million would be automatically removed from the NHS Scotland annual budget.

People expect their Parliament to judge different needs and not just to remove hundreds of millions of pounds from a budget because the Conservatives’ computer tells them to do that. Instead, we need a fair funding settlement for councils, based on the good judgement of MSPs.

I want councils to be able to raise the majority of the money that they spend, just as Holyrood does. If councils control the purse strings, they are free to determine their own future, in partnership with the communities that they serve. If the councils or the voters did not like the decisions on tax and spend, they could chuck them out. We need a framework that nurtures that relationship. That is why we cannot support the Conservative motion.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Like all budgets, the budget for 2022-23 is about choice and prioritising how best to invest in services, infrastructure and people at a time of financial challenge. With fiscal rectitude, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy and the wider Scottish Government have made their choices and set out their priorities.

As we know, the Scottish budget is limited by the forecasts of the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission, beyond which the finance secretary cannot go. I, too, would like more resources to be allocated to local government—who would not?—but this year the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made it clear that Parliament will suffer a real-terms cut, courtesy of Miles Briggs’s Tory bosses at Westminster. It is worth quoting again what the SFC has said, and which was mentioned at the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It said:

“Overall the Scottish Budget in 2022-23 is 2.6 per cent lower than in 2021-22, after accounting for inflation the reduction is 5.2 per cent.”

Miles Briggs and his colleagues should tell us how much additional resource should be allocated to local government from actual Scottish Government resources, not from the mythical funds that he mentioned. He did not tell us that. From where should the extra resources that are being demanded be found, given that the Scottish ministers have such limited room for manoeuvre? Should we raise taxes? If so, which ones? Who should pay and how much should they pay? If money is to be reallocated from other Scottish budget portfolios, which ones should it be reallocated from? Should it be health, transport or net zero? By how much should each portfolio budget be cut to provide additional funding for local authorities? When answers are not forthcoming, that just sounds to me like hot air and posturing.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Mr Gibson will be aware that the Scottish Government budget has increased by 7 per cent. That is more than inflation, so that is exactly where the funding can come from. I will make another suggestion. Why not stop spending £7 million on ministers being ferried around and give that to local authorities?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I wonder how much Whitehall spends on ferrying ministers around.

The mythical figures are nonsense, which is why the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission has dismissed them. We are talking about reality.

I am also curious about how genuine the Tory MSPs’ concern for our local authorities is. If local government is so important to the party that Miles Briggs supports so devotedly, will he tell us why the Tory Government south of the border has eviscerated it so viciously? According to the Institute for Government, the UK Tory Government cut resources to English and Welsh local authorities, including retained business rates, by an eye-watering 37 per cent in real terms between 2010 and 2019-20—from £41 billion to £26 billion at 2019-20 prices.

While funding from previous UK coalition—we clearly recall the Liberal Democrats’ role in that—and Tory Governments was slashed, rates of council tax were increased and English local authorities raised 25 per cent more council tax in real terms in 2019-20 than they raised a decade earlier.

If we compare Scotland to England and Wales, we see that there is simply no relationship between, on one hand, the solid support that the Scottish Government has provided to our councils post the financial crash and through austerity and, on the other, the devastation that has been wrought on local authority services down south. The reality is that no one takes seriously the Tories’ claims that they are advocates for local government.

The Labour Party, of course, just wants to drone on about alleged SNP cuts, which it seeks to blame on the Scottish Government rather than on its better together allies. However, when its former leader, Jeremy Corbyn—do members remember him?—was asked about the depth of the cuts that have been imposed by Labour in Wales, he meekly said that the party had no choice but to pass them on from Westminster. Labour members bleat about 7 per cent of the budget being ring fenced. I recall that 60 local government budget lines were ring fenced when the Lib Dems and Labour were last in power here, and that Wendy Alexander called for full ring fencing of local government budgets.

Willie Rennie was right to say that it is a bizarre idea that councils should, as the Tory motion suggests, automatically receive a set percentage of the Scottish Government budget each year. Why local government and not health, education or justice? With the impending 5.2 per cent cut, that daft Tory proposal would be guaranteed to deliver less funding to our councils.

All Governments need flexibility—they do not have a crystal ball to enable them to see where unexpected financial shocks might arise in the future. For instance, who saw, in 2019, the financial impact of a pandemic coming down the road?

Through methods ranging from resource borrowing to the less-palatable fiscal drag, the Scottish Government is delivering local government tax flexibility in the best possible settlement within a financial straitjacket that has been imposed on us by the Tories at Westminster. Only with independence will the Scottish Government have the ability to deliver the budget for local government, and for every other portfolio, that we all want to see—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to conclude now, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Members should support the Scottish Government amendment.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Kenny Gibson might be a world-leading epidemiologist, but he cannot make his sums add up.

I thank my Scottish Conservative colleagues for bringing this important debate to the chamber. Before I begin, I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a serving councillor on East Lothian Council.

The financial crisis facing Scotland’s local authorities is stark, and entirely of the SNP’s making. As a councillor who represents a ward in East Lothian, which is in the South Scotland region, I am only too well aware of the gravity of the problem that our councils all face. Let there be no doubt about it: the SNP’s austerity agenda for local government continues, with—[

Interruption

.] No, I will not give way.

East Lothian Council is set to lose out on £4.5 million this year. The Government has starved that council, and every other council, for years, and the situation is now serious. The picture that it paints is so bad that it now looks vindictive.

Despite a record settlement from Westminster, the Scottish Government has cut East Lothian’s budget by £1 million in real terms next year, and the council will be a further £3.5 million worse off as a result of changes to the floor-based funding formula, with funding being pooled with other councils. It is simply unfair that one of the fastest-growing areas in Scotland is being repeatedly penalised by the SNP. I urge the Scottish Government to stop short-changing the residents of East Lothian.

It is not only the people of East Lothian who are losing out; the picture is the same across Scotland. As Miles Briggs pointed out, COSLA estimates that £371 million of core funding for Scottish councils will be cut in real terms during this year alone. That is £371 million of cuts to roads, social services, education, housing and refuse collection across Scotland.

While the SNP Government starves communities of funding, it is forcing councils to raise taxes for millions of Scots—

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

No, I will not give way—I have only four minutes, sadly.

The SNP Government is forcing councils to raise taxes just as the cost of living is rising. That is why the Scottish Conservatives are proposing a clear solution to the crisis, which is a crisis of the SNP’s making. We want a permanent settlement for Scotland’s councils that ring fences a percentage of the overall Scottish budget for councils’ funding. We need a fair deal for our councils, and we need it now.

The situation that is emerging in front of us is starker and more serious still. After years of failing to fund our councils, the SNP is stepping up its assault. The Scottish Government’s plan for the creation of a national care service is an assault on local government and an attack on local accountability. What started with the Feeley review of adult social care—arguably an area in need of funding, reform and new thinking—is fast becoming just the latest in a long line of SNP power grabs. It is perhaps the greatest power grab in the history of devolution.

Let us look at the words of COSLA president Alison Evison; she described the national care service plan as “an attack on localism”. On the latest cuts to local councils, all 32 Scottish council leaders have written to the First Minister to tell her that “enough is enough”. We know that the SNP does not do dissent, but even council leaders from the First Minister’s own party are worried. John Alexander, who is SNP council leader for Dundee, has described the recent Scottish budget as

“perhaps the toughest in recent memory”.

After years of hollowing out councils, the SNP is now mounting a direct assault on local government. The SNP wants to scrap local accountability and impose total ministerial control on care, and it is continuing to raid council budgets to pay for pet projects.

When it comes to the SNP and our cash-strapped councils, COSLA is correct: enough is enough.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The events of recent days have once again highlighted the hypocrisy of the Tories. Perhaps they have already forgotten the waste of public funds in awarding personal protective equipment contracts to their pals and the writing-off—only yesterday—of an incredible £4.3 billion for fraudulent business Covid claims; perhaps they were instead focusing on their penchant for partying.

Even as

the Tories were lodging the motion for today’s debate, their Home Secretary, Priti Patel, was launching an outrageous and ill-informed attack on Scotland’s councils in Westminster this week, so forgive me if I am a little cynical about Tory support for Scotland’s councils.

The motion is defective. I will focus on just a few of the issues, given the limited time available. The single ask in the motion is to create a funding settlement that is entirely fixed to a percentage of the Scottish Government budget. That proposal is flawed because it does not allow flexibility for the Government to deal with unforeseen shocks, as was mentioned earlier. The current pandemic is a good example; the fallout from the 2008 economic crisis is another.

Had the Tories put down a sensible economic motion seeking to support the calls by many for increased borrowing powers, that would have been a motion which we could all have rallied around.

The motion is also at serious fault in failing to consider the current economic uncertainties. For example, during 2021, forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Scottish Fiscal Commission and independent forecasters were all subject to considerable change. The forecasts that were published in the lead-up to the Scottish budget failed to take account of the then unknown and arguably unanticipated omicron variant, which is likely to lead to further significant downward changes in forecasts. To fail to understand the consequence of such uncertainties for Government funding is simply not realistic.

Of course, there is one other shock, this time deliberately created by the Tories. The word that dare not speak its name is Brexit, which has had serious implications for local authorities. For example, in response to information requests from the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Scotland’s local authorities have raised very serious concerns about the UK Government’s plans for the replacement of European Union structural funds. Those concerns include the questioning of a seriously flawed methodology that does not respond to Scottish conditions and the failure by the UK Government to fund the resources required to operate the replacement funds, yet nowhere in the motion is the UK Government called out for the harms that it is inflicting on Scottish councils.

Of course, the Scottish Government and our local authorities will be constrained by the operation of the Tory-inspired United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill that is currently going through Westminster.

The Tory motion fails to recognise that, despite all those challenges, uncertainties and constraints, the Scottish Government has come up with an overall settlement in excess of £12.5 billion, representing a real-terms increase of some 5.1 per cent.

As has been pointed out, the

Scottish Government has already committed to working with COSLA to develop a rules-based fiscal framework to support future funding settlements for local government. I hope that all parties can support that.

Finally, no lectures, please, from a Tory party that rewards its own, attacks our local authorities from Westminster and blocks at every turn the need to enhance this Parliament’s financial and economic powers.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Paul O’Kane, who also joins us remotely.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I remind members that I am still a member of East Renfrewshire Council, where I have been a councillor for almost 10 years. It has been—and continues to be—one of the most fulfilling roles that I have ever had the honour to have. Indeed, to be a councillor representing the community you grew up in is an honourable thing.

As a councillor, I have been the convener for education and deputy leader of the council, and I have seen first hand over the past decade how the SNP Government has worn down local government, forcing those in charge to cut services as the budgets are continually cut, year after year.

It has been incredibly challenging to be a local representative when we are consistently faced with budget processes that bring more and more cuts. Indeed, I think of the anxious wait that councillors have every year as we await the settlement from the Government; the long meetings to discuss how to plug some of the gaps using reserves or council tax; and the painful consultation processes as we try to decide on the least worst option in a sea of unthinkable options.

I am not sure whether colleagues in the chamber who have not had to do any of that can fully understand the sleepless nights that it causes, thinking about people’s jobs, people’s services and the communities that we care about.

It is not just councillors who feel like that; it is also the staff, who work so hard in local government. Nobody seeks a career in a local authority in order to make cuts, but Government choices have made many of our dedicated local government officers managers of cuts. I have watched the stress of hard-working officers in education, social work and environment, when they have to spend so much time coming up with unthinkable options, just to square the budget.

I have also seen our workers stretched thin, as they are asked to do more and more to plug the gaps that have been created by cuts. Every Thursday night during the pandemic, the First Minister and Cabinet applauded our key workers, but stress is being piled on to those workers, 55 per cent of whom are paid below £25,000 a year. That is shameful.

Every day in my ward, I see how cuts that have been forced down from Government are hitting our communities and the most vulnerable. Pupil support assistant numbers have been cut, road budgets have been reduced and social care is on its knees. The reality of all that is that people across Scotland are being failed, and there is no sign of it getting better.

We hear from the Government that it has delivered initiatives, such as free early learning and childcare and free school meals, but there is not nearly enough funding to deliver that on the ground in reality, and to ensure that the core infrastructure can be maintained in order to make those things happen.

Of course, the Government is always keen to hold up its manifesto commitments, but what is the reality on the ground when local government has to deliver them? The reform to council tax never appeared; funding to refurbish every play park in Scotland was barely a fraction of what was required; and the proposal to give a free bike to every pupil who cannot afford one was consigned to a pilot that does not scratch the surface. Those are empty words and broken promises from the SNP.

The future holds even more cuts to local government budgets. The budget that was published last month saw a core funding cut of £371 million. That budget makes no provision for pay, inflation, increased demand for services or—as we have heard—the increased burden of national insurance contributions.

To place those cuts in a wider context, that is all happening as we see one of the biggest increases to the cost of living in decades. Such is the scale of the problem that there has been an unprecedented reaction from all 32 council leaders in Scotland, who are calling for the Government to meet them to discuss the settlement, because enough is enough.

It is clear that the SNP Government has failed local government and those who live in our communities. Cuts to councils are cuts to communities and, if the course does not change, the very fabric of our communities will be irreparably damaged.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I

t has been a pattern for years in this Parliament that members on the Tory benches utter not a word of concern or objection when their Westminster colleagues cut Scotland’s budget, but they rush to this chamber to condemn every perceived cut that is made under the Scottish Government’s budget and to make spending demands that exceed the money that is available. As has been mentioned, this year, they are going so far as to claim that a 5 per cent real terms cut from Westminster is somehow an increase. We are all guilty of picking and choosing the figures that suit our position best in these debates, but that claim goes beyond that. It is actively misleading to claim that a cut is a significant increase and, as the Government amendment notes, it is contrary to the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s analysis.

In this debate, not one Conservative member has so far been able to explain how the Scottish Government is expected to sustain the costs of the pandemic from core funds without that impacting on other services. However, that is the result of Covid consequentials being withdrawn when Covid and its effects are still very much with us.

For example, bus and rail use are down by a third in Scotland and that is not expected to change significantly in the next financial year. It will require significant subsidy to keep essential services operating but, without last year’s Covid consequentials being repeated, the choice is either to provide those subsidies from the core transport budget, which will put pressure on other areas, or to let our transport system collapse overnight as the operators withdraw. I presume that the Tories do not want to see its collapse.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I would be delighted to accept an intervention from Mr Briggs, but I repeat the question that others have asked him. Today, the Conservatives have repeated COSLA’s ask for £371 million but, since all the money that is available to the Scottish Government has already been allocated, from which budget would he cut £371 million in order to fulfil what COSLA is asking for?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I have been absolutely clear that the Government has £3.9 billion in additional consequentials. It is this Government’s decision to cut funding. We have not yet had an answer from ministers about the national insurance increase. Ministers sitting on the front bench, whom Ross Greer supports, have £70 million that they have not passed on to local authorities for the national insurance compensation. Why is that, and will he and his Green colleagues ask the ministers to do that at the upcoming budget?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will give you back that time, Mr Greer.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Thank you, that is much appreciated.

First, there is no specific consequential for the national insurance increase.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Yes, there is.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

There are broad consequentials, but, yet again, Mr Briggs has failed to answer the question. Every penny that is available to the Scottish Government has been allocated. There is no money sitting unallocated, but the Conservatives will not explain where they will cut £371 million. COSLA’s point is entirely legitimate, but it is disingenuous of the Conservatives to pretend that it can be fulfilled without significant impacts elsewhere.

Despite the pressures on the Scottish Government, the budget delivers a real-terms increase of more than £0.5 billion to councils. That includes an additional £145 million for teacher recruitment, which is enough to fund 2,500 additional posts. There is £30 million in capital funding to facilitate the expansion of free schools meals, and £60 million for the meals themselves.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

No, not at this point.

There is £175 million to fund the pay increase for care sector workers, and £200 million more for health and social care. I am not suggesting that everything is rosy—COSLA has a perfectly legitimate case to make for more funding, but it is not the only one. The budget represents the fairest possible distribution of extremely limited funding in extremely challenging circumstances.

I have yet to hear from where the Opposition would cut £371 million to fulfil what COSLA is asking for, or what changes it would make to tax policy to raise the funds. The only income tax policy that I can recall the Tories bringing to the Parliament since that power was devolved was the proposed cut for the top 15 per cent of earners, which would have cut a further £0.5 billion from our budget.

Back in 2018, the Greens made changes to income tax to make it more progressive and raise additional funds for public services. This year, a further change was made, freezing the higher and top-rate thresholds, which will raise a further £106 million. I happen to be of the view that we will have to raise significant additional amounts of money from a variety of sources, both existing and new, over this session if we are to meet the objectives that we all share, particularly around child poverty reduction and reaching net zero. Achieving those targets will require a significant increase in funding for local government. That is why the shared policy programme agreed by the two parties of Government commits to delivering both the fiscal framework for local government and a citizens assembly on local government funding. I have my concerns—including those outlined by Willie Rennie—about the Conservatives’ proposal, but I welcome that they have at least brought to the chamber a specific proposal for once.

Both the fiscal framework and the citizens assembly will be transformational in the long term, but I accept that they do not ease the pressure on councils in this financial year.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to conclude now, Mr Greer.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The Scottish Government has done what it can to ease that pressure. If the Tories are serious about removing it completely, they should look to their colleagues in government at Westminster, because the situation is of the Conservative Party’s making.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am still a councillor at Aberdeen City Council.

Throughout the pandemic, our local authorities have been on the front line of providing essential services to our communities. They have gone above and beyond, organising food parcels, online learning, emergency assistance and support to resilience groups—the list goes on and on. They have done so while continuing to provide all their usual essential services, such as caring for our most vulnerable, fixing our roads, emptying our bins and providing community support. They deserve our thanks, praise and, more important, financial support to enable them to continue to provide those essential services.

That is why the funding settlement announced by the cabinet secretary is nothing short of a slap in the face to all the local authorities that have gone above and beyond what is expected on behalf of this devolved Government.

Up and down Scotland, councillors are currently poring over budget spreadsheets, agonising over how they can continue to provide essential services while facing a huge budget cut. They are all desperate not to raise council tax too much, given the pressure on the cost of living in their communities. However, the Scottish Government has passed the buck. It has cut core council funding, and now expects councillors to raise council tax to fill the gap or reduce vital services. It is simply not acceptable.

Council leaders are in agreement that the Scottish Government is ignoring them, with calls for meetings being ignored, engagement lacking and major policy announcements, such as the national care service consultation, being made with no discussion or collaboration. The way that the devolved Scottish Government treats its local government partners is a disgrace.

The Scottish Government has many warm words on preventing drug deaths and on matters such as climate change and educational attainment. Early intervention is key to many of the challenges that we face, and local government is where that preventative work takes place. Local government provides youth clubs, social centres, sports facilities, lunch clubs and school counselling services. All those much-needed facilities are at risk as local government budget cuts continue. Without those preventative services, how will we continue to tackle the challenges that we face at the earliest possible opportunity? If the devolved Government was serious about prevention, it would be investing in local government and not pulling the rug from under its feet.

I turn finally to the question of national insurance, and I ask the cabinet secretary to answer one question. COSLA confirmed to council leaders this week that the Scottish Government has received consequential payments to cover the national insurance rise for local government employees but is refusing to pass that on to councils. In England, councils are being funded for the national insurance increase, but councils in Scotland are not. Local government is the backbone of our communities, so will the minister give us an assurance that the consequential money that was received to pay for national insurance contributions will be passed on to local authorities?

Our local councils have done us proud over the past two years; we should be thanking them, building them up, recognising the vital work that they do and treating them like equal partners in government. Instead, the Scottish Government treats them with contempt. It is time to give our local councils a fair funding settlement that reflects the vital work that they do, which would help them to deliver that work and in turn strengthen our towns, villages and local communities.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind colleagues that Mr Mason is the final speaker in the open debate and that everybody who participated in the debate should be here for the closing speeches.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Like other members, I find the Conservative motion interesting in that it seeks more money for local government but does not say where that money should come from. The Labour amendment takes a similar path. One of the main options for raising such money is increasing taxes, which I would be open to, but we understand that the Tories are normally against tax rises. In fact, they usually do a lot of girning and whining about our income tax being higher than England’s. The other main option is to reduce expenditure somewhere else, and the most obvious option would be to cut NHS spending, because that is one of the largest parts of the Scottish budget. Which is it? Are the Conservatives now open to tax increases or are they seriously suggesting that we cut the health budget while we are still not out of the Covid pandemic?

A party that claims to understand business and the economy surely understands that the books have to balance, but I see nothing in the motion about the source of any additional funding for local government, and neither have they replied to that question from previous speakers.

I find the concept of a ring-fenced percentage of the budget somewhat bizarre. That would take away the powers of the Parliament and MSPs to examine the budget each year and consider where needs are greatest. Over the past couple of years of the Covid pandemic, we have had to reprioritise funding, which has emphasised health services, business support and local government services. I do not think that ring fencing the budget, and by implication ignoring any kind of needs assessment, would be reasonable.

There is also the separate but linked question of allocating local government funding among the 32 councils. I would argue that that too should be based on need. For example, Aberdeen was one of the richest parts of Scotland and therefore got less central funding, which was right at the time. If that is no longer the case, however, needs should be reassessed. Such a process would have to happen in conjunction with COSLA and all the councils.

The wider question is how local government should be funded and whether more of that funding should be raised directly by local councils. I very much support that concept. Apart from anything else, it would give councils more freedom by reducing their dependence on the centre for funding.

Some central funding will always be needed in order to support councils that cannot raise the resources that they require for the needs in their area. Again, however, that funding should be based on need rather than giving everyone the same.

I agree with other members and would dearly love to see the replacement of council tax. As Willie Rennie mentioned, that question has dragged for far too long. At some point, we in Parliament need to bite the bullet and agree on a replacement tax. Such a tax will not please everyone. There will inevitably be winners and losers, but better funding for local government will mean that those who earn more, or who have more property and other assets, will need to pay more.

Let us remember that tax paid, as a share of gross domestic product, is around only 33 per cent in the UK compared to 45 per cent in France and 46 per cent in Denmark. For too long, we have tried to run quality public services without paying the sensible levels of tax that are required, so I welcome the work that the Scottish Government and the Finance and Public Administration Committee are planning to do on where we are going with tax in the longer term.

In summary, we need to be sensible; we can spend only the money that we have. If the Conservatives or Labour want more money for local government, they still have to tell us where it is coming from.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

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.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am grateful to members from across the chamber for their contributions—[

Interruption

.] I am still not used to the masks after two years.

The Scottish budget has focused on the key priorities of tackling inequalities, addressing climate change and supporting our economic recovery. Scotland’s councils share those priorities, and it is clear that our citizens and communities are best served when we work together in partnership at national and local levels.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I would like to make a little bit of progress, please.

Within that partnership, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy will join the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government and the Minister for Social Security and Local Government tomorrow for the inaugural strategic review group meeting with the COSLA presidential team. That group will work to drive greater collaborative working, and it will discuss the implications of the budget in more detail at the first meeting.

Next week, the First Minister will meet the COSLA presidential team and political group leaders in response to their letter on the budget to discuss how best to tackle the new phases of the pandemic, progress recovery and strengthen the partnership between national and local government to deliver for our communities.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am going to make a bit more progress, because I am very tight for time.

Those meetings at the highest levels of Government highlight the priority that the Scottish Government places on working with local government to ensure that high-quality public services continue to be delivered across the country. The forthcoming resource spending review will also continue to focus on key priorities, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy is already engaging with COSLA as part of that process.

The development of a fiscal framework will also have a direct relevance to the spending review. As I outlined in my opening speech today, a fiscal framework cannot be imposed on local government; it must be developed in partnership. The Scottish Government and COSLA have now recommenced the discussions on the fiscal framework that were paused during the pandemic, and a substantive amount of work will be done this year. The development of a fiscal framework is also an important part of the on-going work on the local governance review, which considers how powers, responsibilities and resources are shared across national and local spheres of government and with communities.

Despite the overall reduction in the resources available in the Scottish budget between 2021-22 to 2022-23, the total local government settlement has increased by £588.2 million or 5.1 per cent in real terms. Yes, those figures include the additional funding for priorities such as health and social care integration, the expansion of free school meals and the provision of additional teachers and support staff, but those are key priorities for all parties. If the budget had not funded those things, I am sure that the outrage that is being expressed today would have been redirected in that way.

I will give way to Mr Johnson.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

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?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

It is important to recognise that we are operating within the context of an increasing health budget. The reality is something that Willie Rennie alluded to in his contribution. We have protected the health budget. To my knowledge, there has always been a consensus around all health consequentials being passed on. That is certainly the Government’s position. If other parties have a different view, they should say so clearly. Perhaps that will inform their contributions about where any additional resource for local government should come from in the budget.

I still have some time remaining, Presiding Officer—is that correct?

The Presiding Officer

That is correct, Mr Arthur. You had up to five minutes.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I willl take Mr Kerr’s intervention.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to the minister for bringing me in. He mentioned climate change earlier. The Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport requires local authorities to help to achieve net zero. Last week, the leader of Aberdeen City Council said that the draft budget would have

“a severe impact on what we can do”—[

Official Report, Net Zero and Transport Committee,

11 January; c 29.]

in that space. What impact does the minister think a £371 million cut to council budgets will have on the ability of councils to meet net zero?