Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2016
I have always regarded the finance secretary as a reasonable man, indeed somewhat mild-mannered. It is therefore something of a surprise to see the level of opprobrium that local government has directed towards him during the past few weeks. We have seen him described as Don Corleone Swinney, a Mafia boss, as the Jack Palance character in the 1950s western “Shane”, gunning down the innocent farmer, and as imposing a totally unacceptable settlement that is an attack on the democratic mandate of local government.
It is impossible not to have some sympathy for the views of those in local government about the cabinet secretary’s negotiating tactics. I can only imagine the outrage from the SNP if the Westminster Government treated the Scottish Government in the same way as the Scottish Government is treating local councils.
The settlement is undoubtedly a difficult one for councils, and it means that tough decisions have to be taken. As we know from budget debates, the Scottish Government could have made other choices on tax. I agree with its stance on imposing a rise in income tax, but it can hardly blame Westminster or anyone else for the choices that it has made.
In the area that I represent, I am well aware of the concerns raised by Fife Council about what the level of cuts will mean for public services, but elsewhere the position is happier. In Stirling, where the Conservatives share the administration and we have a Conservative finance convener in Councillor Neil Benny, the council is today delivering a robust, innovative and responsible budget that protects front-line services and finds savings through making the council more efficient. In Stirling, there are no cuts to music provision, nursery care, adult learning, rural services, or services for old people. New money has been found to invest in economic growth in Stirling, including investment in schools, roads, flooding schemes and rural broadband. New efficiencies have been found in the back office. That shows what can be done when Conservatives are involved in running local government.
Other councils have to take responsibility for some of the choices that they have made. In Perth and Kinross, the SNP-run council has chosen to spend nearly £1 million on a relocation of the council chambers from the top floor to the ground floor of the council headquarters. I am sure that that is a desirable project, but one has to ask whether, in these straitened times, it is a priority. The costs include £150,000 that is being spent on new chairs and desks for councillors. Those in the voluntary sector will look on and wonder, as they face potential cuts in funding, how that can be justified.
Today’s local government finance order is about the allocation of funding to councils and we will support it. However, we have one reservation, which I mentioned yesterday in the budget debate. I make no apology for raising it again today. I believe that it is not since 2009 that we have had a proper look at the funding allocation mechanism between councils. We have had persistent claims from councils in the north-east of Scotland, particularly from Aberdeen City Council, that the current funding mechanism disadvantages them. When the economy in Aberdeen and the north-east was booming in relation to the rest of Scotland, there might have been a case for ignoring those claims. However, with the rapid downturn in oil and gas, the situation has become more acute and undoubtedly there is greater demand on council services in Aberdeen than there has been before.
For those reasons, we believe that it is time to look again at the funding allocation settlement. It would be useful if the cabinet secretary could indicate when he is winding up whether the Scottish Government is prepared to do that in the near future.
With that one reservation, and conscious of the difficult circumstances in which local government has been put as a result of the Scottish Government’s choices, we will support the order at decision time.
14:52