Seòmar agus comataidhean

:It would be a standard appeal. I think that James Messis is making a point about what happens if it looks as though a council may be misusing the policy—that may be too pejorative—across the council area, or if it is having unintended consequences but the council is not recognising that.

I do not foresee that happening, because it would be counterproductive. However, for individuals, the normal appeals mechanisms will be there, plus the guidance will set out the specific situations where there should be an understanding—I mentioned, for example, the armed forces, people working in the health service and so on.

:I can share some figures with you from a period of time. In 2012, the number of second homes peaked at 40,599. Between 2019 and 2023 it remained stable, and then it dropped by 10 per cent in 2024. That was the biggest annual decrease in 10 years. The decrease between 2023 and 2024 is likely related to the 100 per cent council tax premium on second homes, which came into effect in April 2024. That was followed by a decrease of 3 per cent between 2024 and 2025. There is some evidence that the premium has had an impact, but it is important to monitor it. James Messis will confirm that we will monitor the impact of local authorities’ use of those powers.

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.

I have nothing else to add, convener.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Shona Robison]—and agreed to.

I take the point. However, I refer the member and the committee to the array of other information that predates and sits alongside the budget or will come after it. For example, the material that was published in June in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan is critical. It is absolutely right that we are held to account for the delivery of that plan, but it sets out a very ambitious programme of transformation and efficiency that is absolutely going to reduce costs. I think that, in many ways, that is what you are getting at—what is the other side of the envelope?

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