Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a good answer and the usual wise words from the Auditor General. I say a big well done to the board.

Auditor General, you might remember from the evidence session with our predecessor committee that the director general for education, communities and justice said that there might be greater

“scope for the Government to ... engage more”

directly with the Gaelic community

“to gauge their views on”—[Official Report, Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, 4 March 2021; c 11.]

the board and their relationship with it. Did that happen? Has that been picked up naturally as a result of the work in the action plan that the board has recently been working through?

Good morning to our colleague from Unison. I go back to the settlement that was discussed earlier. Do you accept that, as we read in the Scottish Parliament information centre papers that committee members have received, the overall total settlement for local government has actually gone up? It is a real-terms increase of £603 million, which is equivalent to a 5.1 per cent uplift. That is in the papers from SPICe, which, as we all know, is independent of Government. Does Unison accept that, so that we can clarify whether we are talking about cuts or uplifts?

However, do you agree that an additional real-terms increase of £603 million is on the table? That is a 5 per cent uplift. You might say that it is not enough, of course, but do you agree that those figures are correct?

Okay. Let us leave that question there.

It was interesting to hear you agree with the Conservative member of the committee earlier about the impact of the budget on poverty and inequality. You must surely be aware that the Scottish Government spends £594 million on mitigating the effects of cuts that have been imposed by the United Kingdom Government. Among the standout items in that sum are discretionary housing payments, on which £83 million is still spent by the Scottish Government to make up for cuts by the UK Government. Do you recognise that that continuing investment by the Scottish Government makes a significant impact in reducing poverty and inequality in Scotland?

I am talking about quite a substantial cherry to pick. That is £594 million that would otherwise not be spent. Some of that money is targeted towards the poorest and most vulnerable people in Scotland. Does Unison not recognise that continuing to do that is a worthwhile investment by the Scottish Government to try to alleviate the worst impacts that have been brought about by decisions taken by the UK Government?

Good morning to both cabinet secretaries. The COSLA spokesperson who we heard from earlier was gracious enough to acknowledge that the overall settlement is £12.5 billion, which is a real-terms increase of £600 million and the equivalent of a 5 per cent increase. There has been a lot of debate on that during this session.

My first question is for Kate Forbes and is on the methodology. That was discussed earlier, so I hope that she does not mind. My good friend and colleague Miles Briggs said that Edinburgh is hard done by through the settlement, but Edinburgh is getting more of a percentage uplift than, for example, East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Glasgow and Dundee. Is population one of the factors in the methodology, so that if an authority loses substantial numbers of its population, its overall allocation diminishes? Do you recognise that such local authorities still have to deliver by and large the same level of service to a diminishing level of population, and it is very difficult for them to do that? Will you consider that issue in any further review of the model for awarding cash to local government?

Okay. Thank you.

I would like to ask the question that I tried to ask the Unison representative earlier, on the total settlement. I think that Councillor Macgregor would be the best person to answer.

Do you recognise the independent figures from SPICe that we have in our papers, which show that the settlement is increasing to £12.5 billion, which represents a real-terms increase of £603 million, or 5.1 per cent? We can argue about whether it is enough, whether we could do more or whether more is needed, but do you at least recognise those independent figures as being accurate?

It is worth making the point, so that we can have that discussion. By any stretch of the imagination, if some authorities are getting a bigger settlement than authorities such as East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Dundee and Glasgow, where poverty and inequality are probably much higher than in those other authorities, that surely has to call into question whether the modelling is weighted correctly or appropriately for the circumstances.

I will leave that question for a future discussion and will move on to my second question, which is also for Kate Forbes. In the previous evidence session, the representative of Unison said that the budget does nothing to tackle inequalities in Scotland. Can you give a direct response to that and outline for the committee how the budget tackles poverty and inequality?