Shona Robison
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“For the purposes of rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise the Parliament that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.”
“I acknowledge that there have been rising costs across the whole public sector. They include the rising costs of employer national insurance contributions and VAT, while the global situation at the moment will put fuel costs up for local authorities and every other part of the public sector. We are well aware of the rising costs.”
“All local authorities in the north- east region have announced council tax increases that are well above the rate of inflation. Financial and social pressures on many constituents make it difficult for them to pay their rent, and delays in receiving social security support compound that situation.”
“Presiding Officer, before I answer the question, I hope that you will indulge me just for a moment, as this is my last portfolio question time and my last opportunity to speak in the Parliament. I take this opportunity to thank my Government officials for all their support in my Government role.”
“Local government has a key role to play in driving progress on reducing child poverty, including by delivering whole-family support that breaks the cycle of poverty. That is why the 2026-27 Scottish budget provides a further real-terms increase to the local government settlement.”
“However, if the amount of funding was truly sufficient, SNP-run councils such as Perth and Kinross Council would not be forced to raise council tax by nearly 9 per cent simply to stand still. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the so- called record funding is not keeping pace with rising costs?”
The complete record
Every one of 509 lines we hold for Shona Robison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“National security is a reserved responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. However, there are also devolved powers that are relevant to national security. Critical national infrastructure are the facilities, systems, sites, information, people, returns and processes that are deemed necessary for a country to function. There are currently 13 official designated critical national infrastructure sectors, where responsibility is split between devolved Administrations and the UK Government. National security concerns are brought forward and given appropriate prominence in budget negotiations and infrastructure prioritisation.”
“As I already confirmed to Jackie Dunbar, it is incumbent on all members of the Scottish Parliament to protect public services in Scotland by calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fully fund the impact on public services, not just in Scotland but across the other devolved Administrations. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There are a couple of brief supplementary questions—they will need to be brief. I call Finlay Carson first.”
“To close that funding gap, the council’s Labour administration unveiled a 6.5 per cent council tax increase, which is set to raise the local authority £9.5 million. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Government’s record funding for South Lanarkshire Council would have allowed the local authority to properly invest in our communities but that, instead, that has been curtailed as a result of Labour’s national insurance tax rise? Shona Robison: I agree with Clare Haughey that the cost of the UK Government’s employer national insurance contributions shortfall in funding is an opportunity gap for Scotland’s public services. With our partners in COSLA, we have repeatedly raised concerns with the UK Treasury about the impact on public services if that reserved tax increase is not fully funded.”
“The Scottish Government will continue to support local authority finances, and we will continue to make the case jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and civic Scotland that His Majesty’s Treasury must fully fund the actual cost of the changes to employer national insurance contributions to Scotland’s public sector. In the interim, we have provided more than £15 billion of funding through the local government settlement, as well as committing £144 million to contribute specifically to the increased cost of employer national insurance contributions. Clare Haughey: South Lanarkshire Council has estimated that the United Kingdom Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions will cost the council around £15 million a year.”
“It is not just Scotland that is affected—all the devolved Administrations have a gap in funding between what is being provided from the Treasury through the Barnett formula and what the actual cost is. I would certainly welcome support from across the Parliament in that respect, as Jackie Dunbar has suggested. I do not believe that Scotland should be penalised for investing in public services, and the UK Government must therefore fully fund the actual cost of the increase for the public sector in Scotland. We will continue to press the Treasury on that issue. Employer National Insurance Contributions (Local Authority Finances) 4.”
“I am aware that Aberdeen City Council is setting its budget today and that most, if not all, of the proposed increase in funding will be used to pay for its increased employer national insurance contributions. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Labour UK Government must stop twiddling its thumbs and agree to fund that additional public sector cost in full? Will she join me in calling on all Scottish Labour MSPs, along with the Scottish National Party, to put pressure on their Westminster colleagues to reverse that ill-thought-through decision? Shona Robison: The Scottish Government will absolutely continue to press the UK Government to fully fund the increase in employer national insurance contributions.”
“We have sought to protect all local authorities from the impact of the United Kingdom Government’s increase to employer national insurance contributions by providing record funding through the local government settlement. In 2025-26, Aberdeen City Council will receive £505.1 million to fund local services, which is an additional 8 per cent compared with the 2024-25 budget. A further £5.4 million will specifically contribute to meeting the increased costs of the UK Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions, as was confirmed at stage 1 of the budget bill. Jackie Dunbar: Scotland’s councils are being left to make difficult decisions about whether to increase council tax bills or cut back on services due to Labour’s reckless decision to increase employer national insurance contributions and not to cover the cost.”
“The question for Labour members is whether that constructive approach should be repeated today. Will they join us in delivering nearly £90 million for Grangemouth in the final budget vote? I certainly hope that they will. Our distinct, inclusive approach to social security aims to tackle child poverty and support disabled people and carers. We are proud of the increases in social security expenditure that we are delivering, helping around 2 million people. That includes £644 million in our package of benefits and payments that are available only in Scotland, including the game-changing Scottish child payment.”
“Our funding will be available immediately in the new financial year and can be utilised without match funding; I hope that the national wealth fund moneys will be offered on a similar basis. Carbon capture and storage is vital for a just transition to net zero. Advice from the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee describes carbon capture, utilisation and storage as a “necessity, not an option”. The Acorn project and the Scottish cluster are central to our environmental commitments and our economic ambitions, and that is why I continue to urge the United Kingdom Government to confirm the Acorn project as a matter of urgency. I back both the funding from the UK Government and the new funding that we are putting forward. We have worked constructively with the UK Government as we try to secure a just transition for Grangemouth.”
“However, I still hope that Labour members will back the budget, thereby supporting the scrapping of the two-child cap, the reintroduction of a universal winter fuel payment, investment of £34 million for culture and investment in primary care, among other matters that they suggest that they support. Last week, the First Minister set out further amendments to the budget to provide an additional £25 million to support the Grangemouth industrial cluster, and I am pleased that Parliament has supported those. That takes Scottish Government support for Grangemouth to almost £90 million. I welcome the Prime Minister’s subsequent announcement of the allocation of £200 million from the national wealth fund to investment in Grangemouth.”
“I am pleased to open the stage 3 budget debate. The budget is delivering record national health service investment; record local government funding; £4.9 billion in climate-positive investment; a universal winter fuel payment for the elderly; and the decisive steps that are necessary to effectively scrap the two-child benefit cap in 2026. The budget has been made stronger through engagement across the Parliament to build the broadest possible support. As a result, there is progress on a range of matters that will help to make Scotland a better place, not least the funding for neonates affected by drugs and the piloting of a £2 bus fare cap. I hold no expectations, of course, that the Conservatives will abandon their downward spiral as they chase the spectre of Nigel Farage—there is nothing new there.”
“It is important that our collective funding responds to the needs of business, the workforce and the community, which are central to Grangemouth’s future.”
“The three amendments proposed today update the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill to include an additional £25 million to support Grangemouth, which the First Minister announced to Parliament on 18 February. That additional financial support will be funded through ScotWind revenues. It will be used to establish a Grangemouth just transition fund, and it will be made available immediately in the new financial year to support businesses and stakeholders. The aim of that additional funding in 2025-26 is to expedite any of the potential solutions that will be set out in the project willow report, as well as to support other proposals that will give Grangemouth a secure and sustainable future. I also welcome the United Kingdom Government’s £200 million investment in Grangemouth.”
“Although annual policy will always depend on parliamentary support, we have made it clear that we wish to provide a period of stability for income tax for the remainder of this parliamentary session.”
“My challenge to the Labour Party is to set out how it would pay for that: would it increase tax for those in the basic and intermediate rates or simply cut public spending? Those are the questions that the Labour Party has to answer. Let me turn to the proposed income tax policy for 2025-26. In the run-up to the publication of our tax strategy, we engaged with 65 different organisations across Scotland, including businesses, think tanks, academics, civil society groups and tax professionals. We listened to the views of those stakeholders and we recognise the importance of having certainty after a period of significant changes to our income tax system. Many have welcomed this approach, particularly our commitment to further evaluate the effects of previous changes in Scottish income tax policy.”
“The budget and the rate resolution provide businesses with the stability that they need to continue investing in our economy. The budget and resolution do not contain the unfunded tax policies that other parties in the chamber seem all too happy to advocate. First, we had the Conservative Party argue for a £595 million income tax cut without setting out which public services it would reduce to pay for it. Now, we have the Labour Party saying that it would raise the higher rate threshold to £50,270. We estimate that that change alone would cost more than £700 million in 2025-26. As the Fraser of Allander Institute pointed out previously, making that change revenue neutral would likely require increases to the basic and intermediate rates of tax.”
“Real-time information data for 2022-23 and 2023-24 shows that earnings growth per head was stronger in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s 2025-26 budget report forecasts gross domestic product growth of 1.6 per cent, which is up from the 1.3 per cent that was forecast last year. It also anticipates earnings growing faster than in the rest of the UK over the forecast horizons. Those figures demonstrate the resilience of the Scottish economy, both now and into the future. Indeed, for the ninth consecutive year, the 2024 Ernst & Young UK attractiveness survey maintained Scotland as the top-performing region of the UK outside of London for foreign direct investment projects.”
“Before starting, I draw the Parliament’s attention to the procedural connection between this debate and rule 9.16.7 of the standing orders, which states that the Scottish rate resolution must be agreed to before stage 3 of the budget bill can proceed. The rate resolution debate gives the Parliament the opportunity to take one step closer to the delivery of a budget that addresses issues that matter to this country, such as tackling child poverty and improving our national health service. In response to the unprecedented challenges that we have faced in recent years, we have raised revenue in a fair and progressive manner that has helped to sustain our investment in vital public services. Despite the usual comments from the doomsayers, the Scottish economy remains resilient.”
“Shona Robison: I agree with Kevin Stewart that that coalition of concern, as he describes it, is very important to keep the pressure up on the UK Government and the Treasury. As I set out in my answers, the hike in employer national insurance contributions places a higher burden on businesses, the public sector and the third sector and is fundamentally a tax on jobs that will impact the Scottish economy. My concern, particularly around commissioned services, is that the hike will impact on the public sector at the end of the day, and that is not acceptable. The Presiding Officer: I call Christine Grahame to ask the briefest of question 8s. Inclusion (Presumption of Mainstreaming in Education) 8.”
“Kevin Stewart: The Labour Government’s employer national insurance hike is not only a tax on jobs; it is also a tax on Scotland’s public services, if the UK Government continues to refuse to fully compensate the costs of the increase for our health services, our care providers and our schools. In her previous answer, the cabinet secretary said that the First Minister and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities were joined by 48 organisations to pressure the UK Government to see sense on the issue. What can the cabinet secretary do to increase that coalition of concern, relay our thoughts to the UK Government and get it to see sense on the issue and pay up for our public services?”
“The UK Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions is undermining our efforts to support businesses in Scotland, jeopardising jobs and hurting employees’ pay packages. On 18 February, the Scottish Government published updated estimates of the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on the Scottish public sector. Those estimates indicate that the combined impact on the public sector and commissioned services is more than £700 million. If the UK Government’s reported allocation is all that is provided, the UK Government will be short-changing services that the public depend on by more than £400 million.”
“That still clearly leaves a shortfall, and I repeat my call to the chancellor to fully fund the costs of the Labour tax rise, which will harm services and the third sector. As I said earlier, I will raise the issue further with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when we meet next week. Employer National Insurance Contributions (Impact of Increase) 7.”
“Stuart McMillan: The cabinet secretary will be aware that a delegation from Inverclyde Council, including the chief executive and the council leader, recently travelled to London to discuss support for Inverclyde with the UK Government. With increases to employer national insurance contributions affecting every council budget, including that of Inverclyde, will the cabinet secretary advise whether she has received feedback showing that the issue has been raised in that way, and whether there has been any movement from the UK Government on the policy? Shona Robison: I am not aware of any outcome of the meeting that Stuart McMillan refers to but, to provide some certainty for councils in Scotland, I announced an additional £144 million for local government, which is equivalent to a 5 per cent rise in council tax.”
“I have raised with the UK Treasury our concerns about the impact on public services if the reserved tax increase is not fully funded. On 3 January, the First Minister and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with their concerns. They were supported by 48 public and voluntary sector organisations, which demonstrates the wide-ranging concerns across Scotland. The Treasury has confirmed that we will receive only a Barnett share of funding for UK departments, which will undoubtedly fall far short of what is needed. I will raise that further with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when we meet next week.”
“Given that this session has had the Calman and Smith commissions, which, as far as I am concerned, resulted in an extension of powers—the Parliament simply did not have those powers in 2007—I say to the Presiding Officer and party leaders that in the next session, Parliament needs to think very carefully. The more mature we have become in age, the less mature we have become in performance in this Parliament. It is a watershed: the galleries are empty at First Minister’s questions and the ratings for Scottish Parliament television have absolutely collapsed. The public are falling out of love with this institution because it is not delivering. In the next session of Parliament, we will have to work collectively to pull together in a way that actually delivers for Scotland, and not just have rhetorical, empty debate. 16:11”
“Instead, it carries on regardless and completely ignores the fact that it does not have the support of Parliament for the actions that it is taking. I am coming to the end of my speech, and I want to be constructive, in as much as I can be. In response to Kate Forbes’s question to the Labour Party, Neil Bibby replied that it takes two to tango. Well, I think that Labour is well and truly Tangoed, frankly, in respect of the position that it took. Why did it make the commitment that it did? It is because fools rush in where angels fear to tread. How do we hope to proceed in the next session of Parliament?”
“Kate Forbes: If it is any consolation, I was referring to Nigel Farage rather than the Conservatives, just to make that crystal clear. The member talks, quite rightly, about the importance of accountability—in other words, all of us being accountable to the electorate on the basis of the decisions that we make. The point that I was making—it is a principled point—was that, if those decisions are then unilaterally overruled, there is not accountability. Does the member not think that the UKIMA undermines the very accountability that he proclaims? Jackson Carlaw: The Deputy First Minister’s point might be more effective if the Government paid attention to divisions in this Parliament when it loses a vote.”
“In 2011, when there was a majority Government, a total of 784 people waited more than 12 hours in emergency departments. By last year, that number had risen to 76,346. Who in the Parliament can be proud of our collective achievement if that is the end result? What is the Deputy First Minister’s response? She has fallen into the habit of every one of her predecessors of saying that the real threat is that the Tories or those at Westminster are set to privatise the NHS in Scotland. For goodness’ sake—is that really the level of our debate? How much more effective would things be if the parties in this Parliament operated more effectively, as we did during the first SNP-led Administration, and sought to find a workable and collective solution to the problems in Scotland’s NHS, rather than using childish and simplistic slogans?”
“Unarguably, all our public services are now in a position of which none of us can be proud, because they are less effective and less successful than they were back at that time. When the Parliament passed my colleague Margaret Mitchell’s no-fault public apologies bill, I do not think that we thought that it would be the Scottish Government that took the greatest advantage of it. How many times do ministers stand up and apologise but then say, “It’s nae my fault”? Next, we have the “Let’s thank our public services but actually do nothing to improve them” bill. Our public services are fed up with being thanked without there being policy changes to improve those services. That is our central failure. Kate Forbes: Will Jackson Carlaw give way? Jackson Carlaw: I will in a second. I looked at waiting times this week.”
“Jackson Carlaw makes some important points, but does he agree that, in these circumstances, what is important is not just the actions of the Government? Does he recognise how different the Opposition is in the Parliament now compared with that during the period that he has cited? Jackson Carlaw: That is a fair point, and let me address it. What has changed? I think that, since then, in effect, the electoral system—which is what sends us all here—has not produced the same proportionality in the Parliament that encouraged engagement and agreement between the parties in order to achieve policy. The system has produced a Parliament that has allowed one party to be much more dogmatic and definitive in the way in which it has progressed legislation, without having a record of achievement.”
“That means that I will commit to providing local government with an additional £144 million to support the cost of the hikes that have been inflicted on the public sector by the UK Government. By providing councils with the equivalent of a 5 per cent national increase in council tax, the certainty that I offer today should reduce the pressure on council tax decisions locally and help councils avoid inflation-busting increases. I will follow up with further detail on the issue once I receive further clarity from the Treasury, which I continue to press for.”
“Scotland and its public services should not be punished because we have chosen to invest more in public services and in the pay of those delivering our public services. We need an urgent decision on that to give public sector employers—including the national health service, the police and local authorities—clarity to inform their spending decisions. I want to provide as much clarity today as I can, particularly for local government. I recognise that councils are in the process of finalising their budgets. Although we do not yet have figures from the Treasury, I want to support local government in managing its planning assumptions. I can therefore confirm that, as things stand, I am aiming to provide funding that covers 60 per cent of the reported costs for all portfolios.”
“The great unknown, of course, is the net impact of the UK Government’s hikes in employer national insurance costs, which we estimate could add more than £530 million in directly employed public sector staff costs. If we include the costs of staff delivering wider public services, such as general practitioners, dentists and social care staff, the figure would increase to more than £700 million. It is essential that the UK Treasury fully funds the actual costs for Scotland’s public sector, but it has indicated that we will instead receive a much lower-value Barnett share of spending in England. That is unacceptable, and Scottish ministers are pressing the UK Government to fund those additional public sector costs in full.”
“The block grant position for 2025-26 represents only a 1 per cent increase in real terms for resource following the very welcome reset of budgets in 2024-25, which started to address the austerity of the past 14 years. Although the United Kingdom autumn budget was a step in the right direction, this Government is clear that the extent of the challenges that we face in our public services will not be addressed in a single year. That further underlines the need for clarity from the UK Government on its longer-term investment plans and commitments. I will be pressing for that clarity in my engagement with His Majesty’s Treasury and in the work towards the UK spending review over the coming months.”
“Shona Robison: As a Government, we are proud that the 2025-26 Scottish budget delivers around £64 billion of funding to deliver on our programme for government, and that it supports our top priorities, which are to eradicate child poverty, grow the economy, tackle the climate emergency and provide high-quality and sustainable public services. Just yesterday, I saw a key example of how society will benefit from the budget when I visited the excellent national treatment centre in Kirkcaldy. I was able to see how it is providing thousands of additional appointments and diagnostic tests, and I thank those working at the centre who took time out to talk to me. As a Parliament, it is important that we recognise that the budget is set against continued and unprecedented challenges to public finances.”
“That collaborative approach between parties demonstrates how the Scottish Parliament was designed to work: effectively engaging and negotiating to agree solutions for the benefit of Scotland. We will now move ahead with delivery, providing improvements to services in Scotland, which is what the people of Scotland want. As a Government, we are proud that the 2025- 26 Scottish budget delivers around £64 billion of funding—[Inaudible.] The Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, there seems to be a problem with your microphone. If you would like to continue, it appears that your microphone has come back on.”
“I am pleased to lead today’s stage 1 debate on the 2025-26 Scottish budget bill. Since I introduced the budget to Parliament in December, the Government has engaged widely across the Parliament to build consensus on a spending programme that will deliver for all of Scotland. Parliament can see that the offer to Scotland has been enhanced by the separate agreements that were reached with the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Greens, and by the further action on and investment in free school meals, nature restoration and neonates who are affected by drugs, along with the introduction of a bus fare cap pilot and targeted support for hospices and colleges.”
“The Government recognises the importance of longer-term financial planning and fiscal sustainability. In looking ahead to the new financial year, and given the clear view of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I have instructed officials to begin planning for a Scottish spending review that will identify opportunities to optimise the use of Scottish Government funding over the longer term. I will engage with the committee and the Scottish Fiscal Commission on those plans. On the infrastructure investment plan pipeline refresh, multiyear certainty on capital budgets is essential to determine what projects and programmes can be delivered over the medium term. For that reason, the UK spending review is essential to support that process.”
“I begin by recognising the importance of the role of Parliament’s committees in scrutinising the Scottish budget. I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its budget report, which was published yesterday. I will respond to it in detail formally ahead of stage 2. In my statement to Parliament on 4 December 2024, I spoke of how we can deliver progress for the people of Scotland only if there is a willingness to work together across the chamber. That is how Parliament is designed to work: as a Parliament of minorities improving the budget, as the people of Scotland would expect. The agreements that were reached with the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Green Party demonstrate what can be achieved in that collaborative space, and I welcome that constructive engagement.”
“First, again, I remind members to listen to the member who has the floor. Secondly, minister, we have only limited time for questions. I would appreciate succinct questions, with answers to match. Maree Todd: I will finish on this point, although I could point to many more improvements. Adult social care workers in Scotland are paid around £1,000 more than their English counterparts because of the investment that this Government has made to ensure that social care workers are paid at least the real living wage.”
“The Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Public Health Scotland have established a rapid peer review and support team to provide direct support to a small number of local systems to help them to reduce delayed discharge. The 2024-25 budget provided a £2 billion investment for social care and integration, which means that funding for social care has increased by more than £1 billion since 2021-22. I will go on. We have invested to ensure that social care workers are paid at least the real living wage. [Interruption.] It is interesting that people do not want to hear that. Social care workers in Scotland are paid at least the real living wage, which is why the minimum wage paid for adult social care staff— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, please resume your seat.”
“The time and money that we have spent will help us to lay a strong foundation for the future of social care and, as always, we are guided by the outputs of the co-design work that we have done in the past three years. We have seen progress. We have enhanced scrutiny and assurance in local areas and have made progress in reducing delayed discharge, with a focus on supporting the local areas experiencing the most challenges. We set up a collaborative response and assurance group to give us a far better understanding of the issues that are being faced, including the national and local challenges, and that has led to a whole system of national and local interventions.”
“Is that it? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Excuse me. Cabinet secretary, please don’t. Maree Todd: I will pick up on a number of issues in Jackie Baillie’s question. The Government committed to a 25 per cent increase in funding for social care during this session of Parliament and we have delivered on that two years early. For context, the £30 million that we spent developing the national care service was £30 million over three years in a system that we collectively spend £5 billion on every year. Jackie Baillie might think that that is unreasonable, but I do not think that it is unreasonable to spend 0.2 per cent of the annual budget to achieve change in a system that we all agree is not currently working.”
“Shona Robison: Kenny Gibson is quite right to highlight this important issue and its impact on local services. The SNP Government has always made it clear that the PFI approach that Labour used has not delivered best value for the taxpayer. We brought it to an end and introduced more affordable schemes in order to reduce the drain on the public purse and to stop the excessive profits. The SNP Government will continue to do that. As Kenny Gibson made clear, we are still paying for the legacy of those mistakes, as I set out in my first answer.”
“The latest published data shows that the estimated total in PFI and PPP unitary charge payments to be paid across the public sector in Scotland in 2024-25 is £1.12 billion. Kenneth Gibson: When it was in office at Holyrood, Labour built a debt mountain so vast that, 18 years later, public-private partnership payments are still rising, and they will peak at an eye-watering £1.25 billion next financial year. North Ayrshire Council will have to pay more than £16 million next year for four secondary schools that were built nearly two decades ago. By the time the contract is paid off, in 2038, it will have paid £440.1 million for schools that were built for £83 million. Owning those schools will cost even more. Can the cabinet secretary say what impact Labour’s disastrous PPP obsession continues to have on our public finances?”
“Can the cabinet secretary assure me that this Scottish National Party Government and future SNP Governments will never follow in Labour’s PFI footsteps, which have left a damaging legacy across all our local authorities? Shona Robison: I can certainly give Clare Haughey that assurance. She is absolutely right that we will be paying the price of the Labour— and, indeed, Tory—flawed PFI-PPP deals for some years to come. I also assure Clare Haughey and Parliament more generally that this SNP Government will continue to ensure that all forms of procurement for sites and services provide the best value for money for the taxpayer and that they realise benefits for our communities. PFI and PPP Unitary Charges 3.”
“If the budget is supported by Parliament, South Lanarkshire Council will receive £805.8 million in 2025-26 to fund local services, which is an extra £63.2 million, or 8.5 per cent, compared with the 2024-25 budget, to support vital day-to-day services. Clare Haughey: This year alone, South Lanarkshire Council is having to pay back more than £40 million due to Labour’s disastrous private finance initiative contracts. Those funds are hiking up the profits of the private sector when, instead, they should be going towards local priorities. Despite additional Scottish Government funding, I am concerned about the impact of those debt repayments when the Labour administration at the council, which is cutting free school transport provision and divesting interest in community halls, sets its budget for next year.”
“In 2025-26, Aberdeenshire Council will receive £615.3 million to fund local services, which is an extra £42.5 million, or an additional 7.4 per cent, compared with 2024-25. All councils are also getting additional capital funding. I am always keen to talk to local authorities— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly. Shona Robison: —about any reforms and changes that they want to make, and I would be happy to have that discussion with Aberdeenshire Council. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will take a brief supplementary from”
“Those people will require additional funding for the services that they should be able to rely on. Given the well-evidenced nature of rural inequality, can the cabinet secretary outline any plans to review the funding formula, and specify what is being done to ensure that rural communities are not cut off, further marginalised and facing worsening inequality? Shona Robison: First, the funding formula is agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the 32 organisations that compose local government. Therein lies the rather big challenge in relation to changes to any funding formula. I would note, however, that the funding floor provides an opportunity to address and recognise changes to census data, for example. I took the decision to amend the funding floor for 2025-26 in recognition of that.”
“In 2025-26, local authorities in the north-east of Scotland will receive £1.79 billion, as part of our record £15 billion settlement to fund local services and meet local needs. That equates to an extra £125.5 million, which is an additional 7.5 per cent compared with the funding that was provided in 2024-25. Maggie Chapman: I have been contacted by Aberdeenshire constituents who are very concerned about the low per capita funding that the council receives. Maintenance of transport and connectivity, including gritting roads and pavements and preserving the authority’s more than 1,100 bridges, is vital for many rural communities. The shire also has an ageing population, with a projected 28 per cent increase in the number of those over the age of 65 by 2029.”