Meeting of the Parliament 25 February 2016
I start—as I finished yesterday—with a special plea for the local alcohol and drug partnerships. The reduction of the main budget from around £69.2 million to £53.8 million is supposed to be made up by money from local health boards. I would appreciate it if the Deputy First Minister could explain whether that money will be forthcoming, because there is great anxiety amongst the alcohol and drug partnerships that there will be a significant drop in their funding of around 23 per cent at a time when they require additional support to deal with the treatment requirements of certain communities.
Those of us who have witnessed some of the projects that that money funds know that it would be a detrimental step for that funding to be reduced. I would appreciate an answer from the Deputy First Minister on whether he will reconsider that allocation or provide guarantees from the local health boards.
Murdo Fraser asked about Aberdeen City Council funding. Mr Swinney and I have an annual discussion about that issue, but every year he refuses to budge. Murdo Fraser makes a fair point that, this year, it is more important than ever that the promise on the 85 per cent threshold—the floor that was set by the SNP Government all those years ago and which has hardly ever been met since—should be met. It accounts for something like an £18 million shortfall in the funding for Aberdeen City Council. At a time when funding is tight, that is a significant sum of money so I would appreciate it if the Deputy First Minister would at last change the policy and agree to meet the 85 per cent threshold so that Aberdeen City Council can receive the money that it is due.
The context for that, of course, is the £500 million cuts to local government as a whole, as we have been debating for what seems like a number of weeks now. To rehearse the argument, we know that the SNP Government has greater flexibility—it has more flexibility than ever before. At the same time, however, it is imposing even greater strictures on local government with its triple-lock arrangement. If councils raise the council tax by just £1, they lose not only all the money for social care and teacher numbers but the funding for the council tax freeze. That seems overly draconian to me, and it certainly removes an element of local democracy and decision making.
As a result, the cuts that are coming local government’s way are certainly John Swinney’s cuts. Every single one of them is at his behest, and he must accept responsibility for the effects of those cuts as they come in the coming year.
Gavin Brown explained the situation very well yesterday: when the cuts come from Westminster they are draconian, but when they are dealt out to local authorities they are somehow very generous. I do not know where the magic money tree comes from. John Swinney was referred to in yesterday’s debate as some kind of wizard, but I am not sure that he is able to magic up that amount of money between the point when the funding comes from London and the point at which it is passed on to local authorities.
As is usually the case, we hear that every single cut is the responsibility of Westminster and every single investment is the responsibility of John Swinney. The two are not the same, and we need a bit more frankness about the flexibility that gives us in this Parliament the ability to do things differently if we so choose. I encourage John Swinney, at this last moment, to change his mind and give local authorities the flexibility, and to look at the alcohol and drug partnerships and at Aberdeen City Council funding.
14:56