Willie Rennie
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“Daniel Johnson’s remarks were powerful, and he identified an issue that is sometimes uncomfortable and that we need to address. The country faces difficult issues, and we do ourselves no favours by ignoring those issues. Some of the points that Daniel Johnson made about immigration were right, and we need to discuss them.”
“Again, Daniel Johnson highlighted that when he talked about comments on “fighting- age men”, “strangers” and “two-tier policing”. We know what those terms mean and what they are appealing to. Thomas Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Willie Rennie: Yes, I will take an intervention from Mr Charmer himself.”
“I understand that a German company will now use the Dalzell plant as a jobbing mill, importing 4,000 tonnes of slab from a foreign supplier outside the UK instead of purchasing that slab from Scunthorpe. All that raises serious questions about an important part of the steel industry in Scotland.”
“It is important for the UK Government that there is learning from the process and that the circumstances of our Parliament—for example, when we re-form following an election—are not an afterthought in relation to the UK Government’s formulation of its approach to legislation and when it decides to introduce it.”
“So far, the Scottish Government has not been formally asked to provide support, but I advise the member and the chamber that the issue was part of my discussions with the UK Government minister yesterday. The legislation extends to Scotland, and the steel undertaking would capture the site.”
“Will that be repaid, and at what point? When will we have a proper functioning mill—the only wide-plate mill in the United Kingdom—at Dalzell? When will it have a constructive relationship with the Scunthorpe plant? All those issues should be at the front of the Government’s mind, but, as usual, it is not paying attention.”
The complete record
Every one of 861 lines we hold for Willie Rennie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 18.
“The regional collaboratives that were introduced by the previous education secretary were scrapped by the current education secretary because they were not working. The Government also introduced national testing. At the time, everybody warned that it would not necessarily be the answer to the problem. As I have said repeatedly, we do not fatten a pig by measuring it. It is necessary to put in place the measures that will drive up performance. Constant measuring does not drive up performance. All that has been created is a myriad of bureaucratic procedures and reporting mechanisms that have been bolted on to the system, which has made things even more challenging for teachers and classroom assistants.”
“However, when Nicola Sturgeon made her promise 10 years ago, she knew that the world is a volatile place and that, in making a promise to the poorest children in the country, it is necessary to have the mechanisms in place to deliver that policy, but the Government failed to do that. Let us look at the individual measures that have not been delivered. They include the promised 90- minute reduction in contact time for teachers, who are on the verge of industrial action. The digital devices that were promised have not been delivered. The 3,500 extra teachers that were promised have not been delivered. The issue of bad behaviour and violence in schools has not been addressed. Let us look at two measures that were introduced by the Government.”
“The ultimate goal should have been to drive up overall performance, as well as to close the attainment gap, which we all wanted to achieve, but even overall performance is static— no improvement has been made on that, either. I know to my bitter cost that, if we do not stick to our word, the electorate will cast a judgment. We have learned from that bitter experience. We apologised for when we made mistakes in the past, but the Scottish Government dodges, slithers and deflects. It is always someone else’s fault— someone else is always to blame. We will hear exactly the same story again today.”
“At the current rate of progress, it will be the grandchildren of the grandchildren of those who are children at the moment who will have the opportunity to have the poverty-related attainment gap reduced in the way that was promised by Nicola Sturgeon 10 years ago. The cabinet secretary will say that we are running down staff, but that is far from the case. I am backing staff. I believe that they are talented people who lift up the chances of children in this country. If only they had a Government that was prepared to back them up. The international reports are what stimulated the debate, as is alluded to in Paul O’Kane’s amendment, which we will support. Those reports highlighted the fact that Scottish education, which used to be the best in the world, had become just average.”
“There is no doubt that, by whatever measure we pick, that commitment has not been met. Sometimes, the gap marginally goes down; sometimes it marginally goes up; and sometimes it stays static. However, one thing is clear: there has not been a substantial reduction. The impact is clear. If we tot up the number of children who have gone through the education system and to whom that promise was made— disadvantaged children from disadvantaged backgrounds—it amounts to 170,000 children in Scotland whose life chances have been limited because of the failure to keep that promise. The commitment has not been met in 10 years and, at the current rate of progress, it will not be met in 20, 30 or even 100 years.”
“That is a yardstick by which the people of Scotland can measure our success.” I repeat those words: “substantially eliminate the gap over … the next decade.” I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills will have lots of statistics and that she will reel out her own selected ones. She has a right to do that and she will be able to identify areas where the gap has narrowed. I am not going to do that. If we traded statistics, none of them would show “elimination”, substantial elimination or even substantial closing of the gap—certainly not over the 10-year deadline that was set. So I am not going to trade statistics today. The promise was very clear. It changed over time, but the programme for government was clear that SNP would “substantially eliminate” the attainment gap.”
“It was at Wester Hailes education centre in 2015, where Nicola Sturgeon gave what was described as an inspirational contribution. In that inspirational contribution, she said: “If you are not, as First Minister, prepared to put your neck on the line on the education of our young people then what are you prepared to do? … I want to be judged on it.” On the back of that contribution, the Scottish National Party went on to win the largest number of seats in the Parliament at the next election, and Nicola Sturgeon continued as First Minister. The subsequent programme for government read: “We intend to make significant progress within the lifetime of this Parliament”— that is, 2016 to 2021— “and substantially eliminate the gap over the course of the next decade.”
“This is a significant moment, not only because it is the annual Liberal Democrat debate in this chamber, which I know that everyone has been desperate to hear—[Laughter.]—but because it marks 10 years since Nicola Sturgeon said, “Judge me on education.” It is a deadline that she herself set. I suspect that this will be the last time in this session that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate education in a substantial way. Perhaps it will be the last opportunity for Nicola Sturgeon to come before us so that she can be judged on education. However, where is the former First Minister today? She is nowhere to be seen— certainly, she is not in the chamber. It seems that she was not prepared to be judged by this Parliament or by the voters of this country. Let us remember how all this began.”
“As I touched on in my response to Mr Rowley, we are engaging with providers, those who work directly in social care and trade unions on an on-going basis. A key element of that will be the progress that we make towards achieving sectoral bargaining. Mr Rennie highlighted the distinction between those who work in the NHS and those who work elsewhere, which reflects the existing structures. I recognise that most members of this Parliament opposed the creation of a national care service, so the arrangements that prevail and that are currently in place mean that such decisions are taken locally. However, the work on sectoral bargaining can help significantly to address the valid points that Mr Rennie has raised.”
“The problem is that the crisis has been coming for a long time. For too long, the Government took it for granted that social care workers would work for a lower wage than those who work in the national health service. As a result, those workers are now leaving and we do not have the support that we need. We will not be able to fix the NHS without fixing social care. We have already seen long waits at accident and emergency departments as a result of the lack of flow through hospitals. When will the Government step up with more measures to make a real difference, because we will not fix the NHS otherwise? Tom Arthur: I recognise the constructive approach that the Liberal Democrats took to engagement with the Scottish Government during the budget process with regard to social care.”
“I wish my successor in the role well, and I urge them to be bold and ambitious as they take forward the vital task of transforming our public services. With that, I am proud to move, That the Parliament agrees that the Budget (Scotland) (No. 5) Bill be passed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Craig Hoy to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, for up to nine minutes. 16:14”
“Given that a further review is beginning, the next Parliament will have the opportunity and the responsibility to argue for a more ambitious and flexible settlement. Of course, the simple truth is that only with the full fiscal powers of independence will we be able to realise our true potential as a nation. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve in the Parliament for more than 27 years, including in various Government roles since 2007. I have held a number of ministerial roles over the years, but the finance brief has been the most rewarding by far, because that is where the tools sit to enable delivery, drive change and support real transformation across Government and society as a whole.”
“Since then, there has been further devolution, and Scotland now has a substantial share of its own revenue, which delivers key elements of our social security system. However, significant constraints remain, and many critical levers continue to sit with Westminster. As both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Scottish Fiscal Commission have recently highlighted, funding growth is set to slow significantly in the years ahead, and Scotland remains heavily dependent on UK Government decisions. That is a challenge for this Parliament as a whole, not just for one party. Through the 2023 fiscal framework review, I was able to agree some welcome improvements with the UK Treasury. That represented meaningful progress; however, I have always been clear that it cannot be the end of the journey.”
“I can confirm that we will also continue to provide around £1 million of funding for the Aberlour children’s charity in 2026-27, offering on-going support for the important community-based intensive perinatal support service. I am grateful to all who engaged in good faith, and I welcome the confirmation from the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Jeremy Balfour that they will support the budget. Even among those parties that have indicated that they will not support the budget, there are members who have argued strongly for specific measures that we have delivered. It would be unusual for members to secure outcomes that they have actively championed but then choose not to support the legislation and the funding that make those possible. In 1999, when I was first elected, this Parliament had very limited fiscal powers.”
“This year, we will freeze ScotRail fares for 2026-27 and remove peak fares on northern isles ferry services for islanders, encouraging greater use of sustainable transport. Throughout the budget process, I have worked to build consensus across the Parliament, engaging constructively with members who have been willing to do likewise. That collaboration has helped to deliver improvements in neurodevelopmental assessment and care for children and young people, further investment in our hospice sector to support pay parity via the agenda for change, support for communities that are affected by the Mossmorran closure, and funding for changing places toilets.”
“We thank the Deputy First Minister for her commitment on colleges, which is welcomed by the sector, but that sector is looking for a long-term plan, to make sure of its continuation in future years. I know that we cannot tell what the next Parliament will do, but is it her intention that that commitment will be part of a much longer-term plan? Shona Robison: Yes. I think that I have made that clear, but I am happy to put that on the record again. We remain steadfast in our commitment to preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls, which is why we have provided a 5 per cent uplift to the delivering equally safe fund. That is nearly £1.1 million extra per year. We continue to improve public transport. Last year, Scotland became the only part of the UK to remove peak rail fares—the biggest reform in decades.”
“The Parliament, with the support of the Government, agreed that there should be an independent national investigation. What has changed since the Parliament agreed to that? What is different about the task force from what the minister has done before? Is there now an independent element? Jenni Minto: The task force is considering how we can do an independent review if that is deemed to be necessary. Willie Rennie will note from the Patient Safety Commissioner’s comments to The Herald, which have already been referenced, that she has questioned the need for such a review. She said that the important thing is that there is continual improvement, which is exactly what the Healthcare Improvement Scotland reviews of maternity services will help to achieve.”
“The impact of the tax rise is therefore not as substantial as the Government hoped, so we have to be equally careful when we propose any tax changes. As Michael Marra said, the tax resolution has to pass in order for us to move on to stage 3. We will support it today, but I urge the Government to look at the tax differentials between Scotland and the rest of the UK, to consider the behavioural change that has already happened as a result of the changes and to be incredibly careful. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up. 16:42”
“I am not arguing for a reckless tax cut, as the Tories would, because we have to be very controlled and predictable and we have to give people confidence. However, I urge the Government to be incredibly careful when it makes any change whatsoever, because we do not want to go back to the days when people completely lost trust in what the Government was doing. There is also a lesson to be learned from the Auditor General. Although the Government is now blaming the fiscal framework, which was negotiated and hailed by John Swinney, the result of the tax increase, which was supposed to be getting on for £1.8 billion, is only £600-odd million net, because of the fiscal framework and our lower earnings and lower employment growth in Scotland.”
“Every time the Government spoke, new taxes were on the horizon, and Humza Yousaf spoke about even more tax rises being over the horizon if he had his way. That is where I have a difference of opinion with the Government, because I think that we need to be incredibly careful. Of course there is behavioural change as a result of tax policy, but what matters even more is the trust that people have in Governments and what is going to happen next, and the rhetoric. If people think that the Government has lost control on taxation, they will make choices that will not benefit our economy when they have life choices to make about where to live, where to work, whether to work, whether to retire or whether to go part-time—in other words, behavioural changes.”
“The answer was a bit vague and noncommittal and the result was that that tax rise has been embedded since then and is not an emergency tax any more. I have supported tax rises in the past. Back at the time of the 2016 election, we supported using, for the first time, the tax powers that Parliament had at the time. However, we opposed the subsequent tax rises proposed by this Government because we think that we have to be incredibly careful with trust regarding tax. Craig Hoy: Will Mr Rennie accept an intervention? Willie Rennie: Not just now. During the Humza Yousaf period, and also at the tail end of the Nicola Sturgeon Government, we saw the Government losing control so that it looked as if taxes were going up at every single opportunity.”
“I had a rather disturbing dream last night and it involved Craig Hoy. He listed every single Liberal Democrat achievement during the budget process, starting off with the community fund and going on to colleges, hospices, young entrepreneurs and money for the islands. He went on about business rates and colleges—I may have said colleges already—and covered all those things. Then I woke up. Now, I have just been subjected to a lecture from Craig Hoy, who supported Liz Truss’s budget just a few years ago. There is an important lesson. I remember when John Swinney was standing in as finance secretary and told us that the tax increase to be introduced that year would be an emergency one. I remember asking him at the time whether the tax would go back down again when we were through the emergency.”
“This is a tight bill for a specific purpose, to fix a problem that we have identified. Please do not add amendments to it. Do not add bells and whistles. Let us make sure that we can get the bill through, using an expedited process, so that we can fix a particular problem. I know that there are things that I would like to include in the bill, but, unusually for me, on this occasion I will be cautious and restrained. It is important—particularly because we have a tight schedule towards the end of the parliamentary session—that we do not add bells and whistles, to ensure that we can get the bill through and fix the problem. 15:28”
“It is difficult to introduce new taxes, but if, on day 1, people from some political parties come along with very wide interpretations of how the money can be used, that will undermine the very scheme that we are trying to promote. To return to the economic circumstances, we already know that many businesses are facing significant increases in business rates and employer national insurance contributions while also dealing with low consumer confidence. I urge local authorities that are considering using the tax to look at the wider economy in their local areas and to consider carefully. That does not mean that they should never do it, but it does mean that they should look at the economic circumstances now to ensure that they are not further undermining what is, in some cases, a fragile sector. My final caution is for Parliament.”
“For example, as Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out, they should listen to what the Holiday and Residential Parks Association has said about the impact of per-night and per-person costs, particularly for families looking for lower-cost holidays. I also urge caution about the use of funds, because I have heard some wide interpretations of what counts as the tourism sector. If the scheme is to work and have the confidence of the sector, it must be used directly for tourism purposes or that confidence will be shot. If there is going to be a virtuous benefit back into the sector, the fee must be ring fenced by local authorities, using the consultative mechanisms set out in the previous bill to make that work.”
“It is therefore right to empower councils to have greater flexibility to choose between having a percentage or a fixed-rate levy, and a number of the other changes set out in the bill are also right. I am sure that the sector will appreciate that while, as Murdo Fraser said, still expressing a degree of resistance to the whole scheme in the first place. We should recognise that the bill is an improvement, and Liberals will therefore support it at stage 1 today and at all other stages. However, I add my voice to the caution that has been expressed by others. The fact that local authorities have a power does not mean that they have to use it, especially in the really difficult financial circumstances that we all see every day. Local authorities should not just charge ahead and implement the levy because they have the power to do so.”
“Ivan McKee is too much “team SNP” to dump his predecessor in it, but, if he had a bit more freedom to speak openly, he would admit that mistakes were made in the past and that, if he had been the minister at that time, the mistake would not have been made. To give him credit, the minister listened and, despite a very busy parliamentary timetable, has managed to find a vehicle to make the change and to respond to the needs of the sector, which had been raising concerns for a long time. He deserves credit for that. As we have repeatedly heard from various speakers, there were deep concerns about complexity leading to greater bureaucracy and undermining the scheme itself because the amount of revenue that would be secured would be minuscule due to the additional costs involved.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio question time. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow members on the front benches to change over. Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“Through that positive and constructive engagement, along with working together on the collective need of, and our responsibility for, learners and the economy, this settlement—if the budget is agreed to fully, as we expect to happen—will have a real, positive impact on communities across Scotland and, crucially, will help our colleges. That is what we discussed in the meeting this morning that I referred to earlier. All of us now have the opportunity to look ahead to what our college sector can provide to ensure that we tackle poverty and realise our economic potential. The member is right to emphasise that there is a process beyond this financial year, and we are working with the college sector and the SFC on how we start to think about how we, on a shared basis, can invest in people and the economy in the round.”
“I am sure that the minister will recognise the role that the Liberal Democrats played in securing the uplift in college funding and in persuading the finance secretary to give that 10 per cent—or £70 million— increase. However, staff, trade unions and college leaders want to know whether this will just be a one-hit wonder or whether it will result in an increase year on year. We need to have certainty for the college sector so that it can plan for the future. Is the minister confident that the finance secretary understands that, and will increases be forthcoming in future years? Ben Macpherson: I thank the member for both his fair criticism, on occasion, and the constructive approach that he and his party have taken to the budget process.”
“Budget 2026-27 (South of Scotland Infrastructure) 6.”
“Equally, energy efficiency across all tenures has improved, with the share of domestic properties achieving an energy performance certificate rating of at least C increasing from 40 per cent to 52 per cent between 2019 and 2023. Willie Rennie compared the home energy scheme with schemes in England. I am always open minded as to how Scotland’s schemes can operate better and more efficiently, although the take-up that I have referred to speaks to their success. What I will not do is allow any of the protections that exist in our scheme to be eroded, because, as we have seen with schemes in the rest of the UK, customers can be left out of pocket with damaging installations having been made in their homes. The Presiding Officer: I would be grateful if colleagues joining the meeting were to do so quietly.”
“The Scottish Government’s home energy scheme is far more expensive than the equivalent boiler upgrade scheme in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, the number of installations in England is going up, while installation numbers in Scotland have stalled. When will the Government get a grip on the home energy system so that we can get people’s bills down in the way that they need, and so that we can get warmer homes, too? Màiri McAllan: I highlight to Willie Rennie the fact that the number of homes with a heat pump installed is higher than ever before in Scotland. According to the Scottish house condition survey in 2019, 23,000 homes had a heat pump installed, and that figure had increased to 45,000 by 2023.”
“Alternatively, if they depart for a short period, how do we get them back quickly into the local economy through those rare well-paid jobs? That is the big challenge. I agree with Daniel Johnson in one respect. When we react in a knee-jerk fashion after the event, that is far too late. We are brilliant at PACE, but we should never be brilliant at PACE providing employment opportunities for people; we should be looking much more at the long-term economic plan. In fact, I would go further than Daniel Johnson—this is not just about Mossmorran; we should look at the Scottish or even the UK economy in that way.”
“It is quite rare industrial land, as it is in an area that is well populated and has access to good workers and good local education facilities, as well as reasonable access to the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is a good location. We should be shouting from the rooftops about the potential of the site and saying to future investors, “Come here and seek the opportunity that has been presented by the departure of this company.” In periods of transition, the real danger is about what happens to the people. The people at the site are talented and, if they go away, they will probably find good jobs. Unfortunately, they might not find good jobs locally. How do we keep them in the area so that we can get the transition running smoothly?”
“Mark Ruskell’s work has done some good in that respect, but we need to hear more from the Green Party about how it intends to bring long‑term economic growth to the country; otherwise, the fury that it rightly expresses on this occasion will be seen as quite hollow. Too often, debates such as this one end up being a battle about us—between political parties. Employees at such sites get incredibly frustrated when something that should be about them turns into a debate about who is better than whom in the chamber. It should never be about that. The discussion needs to be focused on what the employees need now and on how we can exploit the opportunity of the site. It is a good site, with good connections. It is well connected to the A92 and has a grid connection.”
“I live locally and see the Mossmorran flare lighting up the sky regularly. I hear from local people how important the site is and how it provides—this is quite rare—well-paid jobs. I have visited the site on many occasions; I know how the system works and how important it is for the local economy. I pay tribute to Mark Ruskell for his work over a number of years on the issue of just transition. To his credit, he has engaged with the issue on a serious basis. However, it is difficult—I hope that this is a fair reflection—for the Greens, as they are not perceived as a party that supports investment in the economy or in business. Their rhetoric is often quite damaging, particularly around tax and regulation.”
“Does the cabinet secretary think that Craig Hoy is protesting just a bit too much, given that he was incapable of negotiating anything from the budget, even to defend businesses in this country? Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, businesses will have a reduction in their business rates compared with what was planned. Is Craig Hoy not just a little bit sore? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am not entirely sure that any of that directly relates to question 5, so we will move to question 6. Budget 2026-27(Small and Medium-sized Cultural Events) 6.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill. 15:37”
“I will allocate £4.3 million of additional resource funding in 2026-27 to the transport portfolio to deliver the freeze to ScotRail fares. That will build on other measures in the budget, such as the removal of peak fares on the northern isles ferries for our island communities and the continued removal of ScotRail peak fares for good. This afternoon, I will write to the Finance and Public Administration Committee to set out the detail of the proposed amendments that will be lodged at stage 2 for its consideration. I remind members that, although the Government has set out a budget that delivers a strong economy, strong public services and stronger support for families, it remains a shared responsibility to deliver that for the Scottish people by supporting the budget bill.”
“Like members across the chamber, I have seen the value that those community projects have in our constituencies across Scotland. We recognise calls to provide stability for those organisations, which is why we propose to allocate a further £5.33 million of new resource funding and prioritise a further £1.6 million from within the budget, taking the total available funding to £9.13 million and extending the fund in full for 2026-27. That is in stark contrast to the UK Government, which has cut funding for local growth in Scotland. As the First Minister announced earlier today, another amendment that the Government proposes is the delivery of a freeze to all ScotRail fares, including season tickets and flexipasses, until April 2027. That will be welcome news for many commuters.”
“The fair settlement for local government came through cross-party discussions. We are proud that the budget includes almost £15.7 billion of funding for local government, which is a 2 per cent real-terms increase in 2026-27, compared to last year’s budget. However, since the budget was published, I have continued to engage with COSLA and listen to its concerns. As a result, I can confirm my intention to allocate a further £20 million to the local government settlement for social care, which councils can use to fund the real living wage for the adult and childcare sectors. The investing in communities fund supports community-led organisations and deprived and fragile communities to tackle disadvantage and poverty on their own terms, delivering projects, services and activities that are identified and developed by communities themselves.”
“We will also invest £9 million in the next three years to support communities that are impacted by the closure of the Fife ethylene plant at Mossmorran, and we will provide a three-year settlement for disabled people’s organisations, with £3.5 million of funding in 2026-27 and in each of the subsequent two years. The draft budget set out an initial commitment of £6.5 million for hospices in 2026-27, with further engagement planned to understand what support would be required to deliver pay parity for hospice staff with the national health service’s agenda for change. I confirm that we will prioritise an additional £2.9 million for that sector. In that spirit of listening and engagement, I can also confirm that—provided that the bill passes stage 1 today—the Government intends to lodge amendments at stage 2.”
“Although the budget is rooted firmly in the Government’s priorities, it has also been shaped by meaningful engagement with others, with whom we identified many areas of common ground. That included a shared priority across parties to support our Scottish colleges. I welcome the positive recognition of the 10 per cent uplift on last year’s core budget by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which reflects the response from commentators and the sector. Some parties and members advocated for specific areas in the budget. I thank those members for their constructive approach. It means that we will deliver improvements in neurodevelopmental assessments and care of children and young people, which will see investment of more than £7.5 million in 2026-27 and growing future investment.”
“I welcome the measures that have been set out. In my constituency, some businesses were going to have their profits wiped out altogether, so I hope that the changes will make a significant difference to them. It is not only for one year, either; it is for three. However, what lessons can we learn from the valuation process? We cannot come back here again to discuss the issue every time that we have a valuation problem. Shona Robison: Revaluation is an independent process, as agreed by the Parliament. There are always winners and losers in such processes, but I am sure that there will be reflection on how we ensure that transitional relief is received when it is required. There are always lessons to be learned.”
“Why does the Government not give a proper projection for what it thinks local government will get, so that local government can plan properly to shape the services that we need, rather than the Government playing that constant game of underestimating, putting the figure down and then bumping it up later? It is just a game. Shona Robison: Will the member give way on that point? Willie Rennie: I do not know whether I have the time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Not even for your punchline, Mr Rennie. Willie Rennie: I wish that we would treat local government with a bit more respect. Let us give it a proper settlement to meet the demands that it faces and the expectations that are put on it. In doing so, we might start to get a more efficient and effective council system than the one that we have now. 16:28”
“Shona Robison: In no spending review outlook do the figures stay the same from budget to budget. Let us look back to the projection for local government in the spending review for 2025-26. Local government has £3 billion more than was anticipated in that spending review. That is the point that I was making. Willie Rennie: I accept that. However, from looking at the chart, it is very clear that the spending lines go up for health, education and many other departments. Local government is way at the other end of the scale. Why has local government been singled out for that treatment?”
“We have had commissions, talks, reviews, expert groups and the wonderful citizens assembly that died a death almost before it started. Let us do something serious if we are serious about reform. Craig Hoy and the cabinet secretary were talking past each other about whether the 2026-27 settlement represents an increase or a reduction in funding for local government. They were both right, to some extent, because the cabinet secretary was looking to the past and Craig Hoy was looking to the future. However, the central bit of it is that the cabinet secretary said that Craig Hoy was referring to the spending review figures and not the budget figures. Does that mean that the spending review figures are not accurate and that the figures will go up? Will the cabinet secretary tell us that and whether it is guaranteed?”
“They like that. They like the fact that the valuations are stuck way in the past. They like all that, because they are conservatives. The SNP should just be honest that it favours that as well, because it is too scared to change anything. I get that change is hard. Change is really difficult, but the SNP has not changed things one jot. It has tinkered at the top end and made itself feel virtuous by changing the tax for the upper bands. However, in reality, that has not changed anything for local government, which has not been given a proper settlement that respects its needs so that it can pay for the public services that we demand of it. I just hope that ministers will take that away and either stop pretending that they are trying to change things or give us something serious.”
“I have not got to the punchline yet. [Laughter.] There is a punchline. Then, there is a ministerial reshuffle, and the next innocent soul comes in and tries all over again to excite us about the proposals. They say, “Tell us what you want to do.” We then go through the whole thing over and over. I think that I went through three rounds like that. I am serious when I say this: when ministers say that they are up for reform, frankly, I do not believe them. I do not think that they really want to do it, and I do not think that they will ever do it. I would rather that they were just honest about that and adopted the Conservative position. The Conservatives, to be fair, have been honest about this from the beginning: they want to hold on to the post-Thatcherite tax regime. They are quite keen on it and on the fact that it is 35 years old.”