Seòmar agus comataidhean

::I suspect that Shona Robison’s new-found friends in the Liberal Democrats and Labour will agree to the order, which is why we will abstain on a point of principle.

In the budget that was agreed to yesterday, the Government is yet again putting money in the wrong place. Councils are operating under sustained pressure following a decade of SNP underfunding, ring fencing and a centralised direction from the Scottish Government. Right across Scotland, demand continues to rise across core services while costs remain elevated, particularly in relation to social care, where even the late adjustments to the budget will not go anywhere near meeting the requirements as set out by COSLA.

The gap between what councils are expected to deliver and the resources that are available to them is becoming increasingly difficult to manage, and that will continue in the future. Let us make sure that it is on the record that it is the SNP Government’s political choice to spend more on benefits and to starve local authorities of the resources that they require. Even if, in certain years, there are real-terms increases, the scale of the challenges and the costs that councils face exceed any above-inflation increases, which only rarely occur.

That is why, across Scotland, councils are grappling with the challenge of balancing their books. Take Dumfries and Galloway Council, for example, which has already been forced to make £130 million in savings in the past 15 years and now faces a further £35 million gap over the next three years. That is why, today, that SNP council made a proposal for an 8.5 per cent council tax increase, which was only voted down a matter of a few minutes ago. It is why, in Dumfries and Galloway, an SNP council proposed to remove the entire funding from its citizens advice bureau and remove Alzheimer Scotland’s care services for those with dementia. It is why, in that SNP council’s final draft proposal, there were cuts that would remove funding for campus cops, close small rural nurseries, reduce the number of deputy headteachers and scrap the pool of permanent supply teachers. That is the reality of the effects of SNP Government decisions on an SNP-run council.

The picture is no better elsewhere. For years, councils have been asked by the Government to do more with less. As I said earlier, yesterday, the SNP-run North Ayrshire Council would have passed a budget forcing a 12 per cent increase in council tax, had numerous councillors not intervened. To go back to the cabinet secretary’s earlier point about why certain rural councils—Conservative and otherwise—are having to look at double-digit increases, it is because the funding formula works against rural local authorities, particularly in relation to social care, and particularly those rural authorities in areas that do not vote for the SNP. In future years, future finance secretaries need to look seriously at not only the funding formula for rural local authorities but the national resource allocation committee—NRAC—formula for funding rural healthcare.

It is not only me who is critical of the Government’s decisions. Professor David Bell has warned that the position of local government in Scotland is severe and will become critical. The Accounts Commission has reached similar conclusions: its recent report projects a combined funding gap of around £1 billion across Scotland’s councils by 2027. That means significantly higher council tax increases in future years or more severe cuts in areas where core services and statutory functions have already been cut to the bone.

Let us not forget that local government’s share of the Scottish Government budget is projected to reduce from 26.4 per cent to 24.8 per cent. That is a continuation of a decades-long trend in which council funding has been sacrificed for SNP Government priorities elsewhere. That is why we will not support this local government finance order.

Ultimately, the budget is about choices. We have said all the way through that we believe that the SNP Government has made the wrong choices. Now, and in the past, it is not living up to the obligations that it put into the Verity house agreement. I recognise that there will be more funds for certain councils in this package, but the package singularly fails to meet the challenges and the costs that councils will face. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government delivers services that people across Scotland rely on every day. However, none of this funding will go near touching the sides once all those costs—particularly the labour costs—are met. That is why the Scottish Conservatives will not back this deeply deficient local government settlement. We encourage the Government to finally focus on rewarding local authorities and giving them the fair funding that they deserve and the Scottish Government’s guarantee—which we will put in our manifesto—to deliver in future years.

17:13

::I will let the convener into a secret: when I heard that the Finance and Public Administration Committee was going to hold an inquiry into public inquiries, I was mildly disheartened, because the cynic in me questioned the need for doing so. I am reminded of a quote from Sir Humphrey Appleby, who said:

“Minister, two basic rules of government: never look into anything you do not have to, and never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.”

So, I questioned, off the back of a House of Lords inquiry into public inquiries, whether that would be the best use of the committee’s time. However, my cynicism was not well placed, because the report is very strong and the nine months were very well utilised to get to the heart of an issue of public administration that has perhaps been overlooked for too long.

I hope that the cabinet secretary—we have heard further concessions today—as well as those outside Parliament, the broader Government machine, campaign groups and the legal fraternity take seriously the committee’s recommendations. As a former journalist, I believe that public inquiries have their place, as do royal commissions, although I note that, for some reason, royal commissions—perhaps Sir Humphrey Appleby had some influence on this—which were a creature of the 1970s and early 1980s, seem to have gone out of fashion.

This is the opportunity and the time to look back and forward and assess whether the one-size-fits-all judicial model is effective and fit for purpose in modern Scotland. I believe that the committee’s report has identified many of the critical issues that need to be addressed so that, in future, public inquiries are efficient for the Government and the public purse and maintain the trust that they presently enjoy. I believe that they are presently the gold standard and the go-to when there is a disaster, scandal or public procurement problem.

We need to address three areas in future, and I hope that the Government will look at them. The budget for public inquiries needs to be fixed. Terms of reference can change over time, but I think that the Parliament and the Government must have a say if that happens, because otherwise we see the mission creep that other members have identified.

The committee had some concerns about the role of lawyers in directing the length and scope of inquiries. Over the course of recent months, I have put my views on that on the public record in the media, even though not all lawyers welcome my position. By common consent, I think that we need to look at the scope of inquires and the length of time that they can take.

I do not often argue for new bodies or quangos to be created, but I think that there is a compelling case for a centralised unit and, possibly, centralised accommodation to house inquiry secretariats. None of us can forget the image of Lord Hardie crawling around on the floor and installing new duct tape so that he could get an internet connection before the trams inquiry could commence its deliberations. I believe that that needs to be assessed in the interests of the public purse.

The committee was clear that there needs to be some form of sunset clause so that the public, and families in particular, who, in many cases, are going through a period of trauma, know how long they will have to wait in order to get answers.

::Parliamentary business meant that the minister could spend only 30 minutes with rural campaigners in Parliament this week, but is she aware that the south of Scotland convention will potentially be hosting two meetings in April, one most likely in Moffat? I extend an invitation to her to attend a meeting and speak to those community representatives, and I will issue a personal invitation to that effect.

::Given that independent analysts have said that this budget is in a parallel universe—[Interruption.]

::Will Ross Greer take an intervention?

::I point Mr Greer to an SNP Government study that says that one in 10 recipients of the Scottish child payment is changing the way that they interface with the labour market, turning down additional hours or rejecting a pay increase. Would it not be better if those people took the additional hours or the pay increase and freed up the money to use for other people who might be living in poverty?

::[Made a request to intervene.]

::[Made a request to intervene.]

::I will happily give way—

::Does Mr Gibson believe that the Scottish benefits bill is sustainable?