Chamber and committees

I merely say to you that at no point have you come to me and said, “I think that local government needs another £250 million and it should be taken from A, B or C.” When it comes down to the brass tacks of how much money is available and where it comes from, it can only come from other areas of spend.

You have talked in fairly general, vague terms about social security spend, but you know as well as I do that, to adjust any social security spend, legislation would have to go through in this Parliament to adjust entitlements, and we would be a year down the line before we could do any of that, even if we wanted to. The budgets have to be in place for 1 April. The choice that I have—and the choice that you would have—involves the fact that the £200 million, £250 million or however much more you think that local government should get would have to come from, for example, higher and further education, the health budget or other front-line services. Those are the only places where it could come from in time for 1 April.

We have to be honest about what we are saying. If you truly believe that there is not enough money for local government, you could have made more money for it a condition of your support for the budget and told me where you thought that it should come from. However, you have not done that.

I am afraid that those are the choices that have to be made when you are sitting in my seat, and those are the choices that I have made.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Schedule 2—Direct-funded bodies

I get that, but I point to the other material that is produced, such as the impact assessments, as well as the things that are to come. If we take child poverty as an example, the delivery plan that Shirley-Anne Somerville will publish soon will contain a lot of the detail on the new areas and the evidence base that those will help us to get towards the target that we have all agreed on. I am merely pointing out that there is an array of other information that predates the budget or will come after it. As ever, however, I will absolutely reflect on what the committee is saying about the information that is provided.

Craig Hoy said that it would be hard to argue against the measures that I have set out. I would have hoped that it would be even harder to vote against them at stage 3, because that would involve voting for less money for social care and less money for local government. Those are areas of spend that I have adjusted in the light of discussions. I have met Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders and stakeholders and listened to the third sector, and I have adjusted those areas of spend in the light of listening to all of them. Ultimately, the judgment will be yours to make when it comes to voting for or against that additional funding.

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Overall cash authorisations

Amendments 9 to 11 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 11 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The three amendments in this group amend schedule 2 and section 4 to update the figures and authorised spending purposes for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Taken together, amendments 6 and 10 increase its maximum spend and its overall cash authorisation by £71,000 and £211,000 respectively. That is to align fully with the agreed budget.

Amendment 7 updates the SPCB’s authorised spending purposes to include specific reference to the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, both of which it will be responsible for funding in 2026-27. I urge members to support amendment 6 and the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 6.

First, on Liz Smith’s point, there will always be areas where we can get into some of the detail of the improvement that we have made in the flow of information, the choices that are made and the reasons that lie behind those choices. I will reflect on what Liz Smith has said, as I will always do. However, the choices that we have made are in line with our four key Government priorities, and it is for others to make other choices as they see fit.

The six amendments in this group will update the budget bill to give effect to the additional spend that I communicated to the committee in my letter on 12 February. Since the draft budget was published, engagement has been undertaken to strengthen the overall budget package, respond to stakeholder priorities and secure the parliamentary support that will be required for the budget’s passage. That engagement includes the formal budget agreement that was reached with the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Taken together, amendments 1 to 5 will amend schedule 1 to increase the maximum spend across three ministerial portfolios and ensure that the authorised spending purposes cover all proposed spending priorities. That will authorise a combined total of almost £30 million in additional funding for the finance and local government portfolio, the transport portfolio and the Deputy First Minister, economy and Gaelic portfolio.

With regard to the finance and local government portfolio, amendment 1 will increase the allocation to the local government settlement for social care by £20 million, which local authorities can put towards funding the real living wage for the adult and childcare sectors.

For transport, amendment 2 will increase the portfolio allocation by £4.3 million to provide funding for a rail fare freeze for 2026-27, as communicated by the First Minister on 12 February.

For the Deputy First Minister, economy and Gaelic portfolio, amendment 3 will increase the allocation by £5.33 million for the investing in communities fund. To that end, amendment 4 will extend the portfolio’s authorised spending purposes to include expenditure on community-led regeneration.

To take account of that additional authorised spend, amendment 5 will amend schedule 1 to increase the total amount of resources that the Scottish Administration is authorised to use. As a result, amendment 9 amends section 4 to increase the Scottish Administration’s overall cash authorisation to take account of the almost £30 million of additional funding that is being allocated. Accordingly, I urge members to support amendment 1 and others in the group.

I move amendment 1.

Yes, of course.

The two amendments in this group likewise update the budget bill figures for Audit Scotland to fully align with the agreed budget. Amendment 8 amends schedule 2 to reduce Audit Scotland’s maximum spend by £82,000, whereas amendment 11 amends section 4 to increase its overall cash authorisation by £168,000. I urge members to support amendment 8 and the other amendment in this group.

I move amendment 8.

Transformation means that services need to be provided in a way that maintains service quality but looks to deliver things more efficiently and effectively and makes resources go further.

I have mentioned already the opportunity for shared services; I am thinking, in particular, about those areas in which it is difficult to recruit—areas that come to mind include planning. There are already good examples of local authorities sharing waste management services and back-office functions. There are many opportunities to do that.

On the use of digital, from the first round of the invest to save fund, there are good examples of local authorities’ digital solutions. Glasgow City Council, for example, received £100,000 for its smart and connected social places programme, which looks at digital solutions to enhance public services and deliver efficiency gains in housing and health and social care. Perth and Kinross Council received £500,000 to reduce energy costs and deliver a reduction in environmental impact. Falkirk and Clackmannanshire Councils were given £2 million to look at closer collaboration and shared services. There are many other examples from the fund. Those areas are ripe for looking at.

I should add that that work does not just need to be between local authorities. Transformation can happen within local government and health, and the single authority model is being looked at in some areas of the country, particularly where the health and local government boundaries are coterminous; other public sector bodies within the localities are also being looked at.

The trajectory of funding and all the pressures on public finances is what we need to consider to ensure that public services can be sustained going forward. Every part of the public sector is having to look at this.

I am happy to do that.