Chamber
Plenary, 07 Dec 2000
07 Dec 2000 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Local Government Settlement
No. I have never been a Unison-sponsored MSP. Kenny Gibson has a spade; he should keep digging.
Kenny Gibson raised several important points about the settlement, especially to do with Glasgow. I will address them face on.
It beggars belief that anybody could cavil at or complain about a settlement for local government that amounts to a 10.5 per cent increase over the next three years. It is not just the extra money, welcome though that is—I speak as someone who was a finance convener in local government—it is the stability of knowing that the settlement is over three years. That flexibility, with the additional money, allows local government to make decisions, not about cutting budgets but about investing in real-terms increases. That is what will make such a difference to people.
I will address the specific points about Glasgow. If Kenny Gibson is advocating that we should have gone back to a block and formula system rather than a population system as a method of distributing the local government settlement, he had better explain to Shona Robison, who I understand is a predominantly Dundee-based MSP from his party, that that system would have left Dundee—a city with serious deprivation problems in anybody's terms—worse off than will the population-based system that we have adopted.
There is a fundamental difference between how the two systems deliver for deprivation. The population formula does not distribute resources simply on the basis of the number of bodies in a local authority area; it is a matter not of how many people there are, but of what kind of people they are—whether they are elderly or young—and what kinds of services they require. The population formula reflects deprivation. More than 13 assessments in it relate to deprivation and cover more than £600 million of expenditure. This year, more than £85 million was redistributed between authorities specifically because of deprivation-related indicators.
If we had adopted a block and formula approach, Glasgow would have received £3.9 million more over the three years of the settlement than it will under the population approach. However, we have not taken simply the population approach. We have taken the population system plus the minimum threshold. That gives Glasgow £16 million more over the three years than the block and formula approach would. I will repeat that for the hard of hearing. The block and formula approach gives Glasgow an additional £3.9 million, but beyond that £3.9 million what we are doing with the population approach and the minimum floor gives Glasgow an additional £12 million plus over three years. That is a good deal for Glasgow. It is a good deal for every authority in Scotland.
Kenny Gibson raised several important points about the settlement, especially to do with Glasgow. I will address them face on.
It beggars belief that anybody could cavil at or complain about a settlement for local government that amounts to a 10.5 per cent increase over the next three years. It is not just the extra money, welcome though that is—I speak as someone who was a finance convener in local government—it is the stability of knowing that the settlement is over three years. That flexibility, with the additional money, allows local government to make decisions, not about cutting budgets but about investing in real-terms increases. That is what will make such a difference to people.
I will address the specific points about Glasgow. If Kenny Gibson is advocating that we should have gone back to a block and formula system rather than a population system as a method of distributing the local government settlement, he had better explain to Shona Robison, who I understand is a predominantly Dundee-based MSP from his party, that that system would have left Dundee—a city with serious deprivation problems in anybody's terms—worse off than will the population-based system that we have adopted.
There is a fundamental difference between how the two systems deliver for deprivation. The population formula does not distribute resources simply on the basis of the number of bodies in a local authority area; it is a matter not of how many people there are, but of what kind of people they are—whether they are elderly or young—and what kinds of services they require. The population formula reflects deprivation. More than 13 assessments in it relate to deprivation and cover more than £600 million of expenditure. This year, more than £85 million was redistributed between authorities specifically because of deprivation-related indicators.
If we had adopted a block and formula approach, Glasgow would have received £3.9 million more over the three years of the settlement than it will under the population approach. However, we have not taken simply the population approach. We have taken the population system plus the minimum threshold. That gives Glasgow £16 million more over the three years than the block and formula approach would. I will repeat that for the hard of hearing. The block and formula approach gives Glasgow an additional £3.9 million, but beyond that £3.9 million what we are doing with the population approach and the minimum floor gives Glasgow an additional £12 million plus over three years. That is a good deal for Glasgow. It is a good deal for every authority in Scotland.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
The first item of business is a statement by Angus MacKay on the local government settlement.
Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order. This morning I contacted my colleague Kenny Gibson, asking to see a copy of the minister's statement, which he had in his possession at ...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The answer is no, I cannot do anything about that because it is not a point of order for me. I am informed that, as a matter of courtesy, the Executive gives...
The Minister for Finance and Local Government (Angus MacKay):
Lab
With Fergus Ewing's consent, I will steer clear of freedom of information this morning and stick to the local government settlement. Since devolution, the La...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
That was inevitably a long and detailed statement, so I will allow questions to run on until about 10.15.
Mr Kenneth Gibson (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement an hour ago. I have guarded it with my life.I came here this morning hoping to hear from S...
Angus MacKay:
Lab
That was a satisfyingly muted series of questions from Kenny Gibson, which tells me that the announcements that we made today are a substantial change on pre...
Mr Gibson:
SNP
You were.
Angus MacKay:
Lab
No. I have never been a Unison-sponsored MSP. Kenny Gibson has a spade; he should keep digging.Kenny Gibson raised several important points about the settlem...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I now call Keith Harding. It would be helpful if you pressed the button.
Mr Keith Harding (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
Con
It is pressed.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
It is normal to press the button if you want to be called, but I knew that you wished to speak.
Mr Harding:
Con
I had pressed the button.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
No, you had not. On you go now.
Mr Harding:
Con
Thank you, Presiding Officer.I thank Mr MacKay for giving me the statement an hour ago. I spent the hour reading it, not writing a speech.Everyone agrees tha...
Angus MacKay:
Lab
I am left almost speechless by Keith Harding's contribution. It is so far removed from reality that it would have given me some concern if I had not heard so...
Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con) rose—
Con
Angus MacKay:
Lab
I am not sure that I am allowed to take an intervention.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
No.
Angus MacKay:
Lab
We have adopted a formula that has a good distribution for every council in Scotland. For members to be crying "Bah, humbug", especially at this time of the ...
Mr Harding:
Con
May I ask another question?
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
All right, I will let you in again. Your question was very short. Members: "Oh, come on." His question was very short.
Mr Harding:
Con
Is the minister saying that, as a result of the budget settlement, there will be no cuts in essential services in councils throughout Scotland?
Angus MacKay:
Lab
I get a bit concerned when former councillors come at the debate in those terms.
Mr Harding:
Con
I am still a councillor.
Angus MacKay:
Lab
Oh, dear—that is even more astonishing. I get a bit concerned when councillors ask questions about what the settlement will mean for specific local governmen...
Iain Smith (North-East Fife) (LD):
LD
As someone who was a councillor in Fife for 17 years before being elected to the Scottish Parliament—
Mr Gibson:
SNP
Is the member that old?
Iain Smith:
LD
I am.
Mr Gibson:
SNP
And I thought that he was a sweet young thing.