By David Scott in
Edinburgh
27 January 2011
The Scottish Government’s £33bn spending plans for the coming year have cleared their first crucial hurdle after MSPs approved the principles of the budget bill.
However, opposition members, during a first stage debate at Holyrood yesterday demanded that changes be made before they would be prepared to endorse the bill when it reaches its final stage on February 9.
The minority SNP administration – presenting its last budget before the parliament elections in May – needs votes from opposition MSPs if the plans are to be approved.
Conservative MSPs backed the bill, which was approved by 62 votes to 2. Only the two Green MSPs rejected the bill outright.
Fifty-six Labour and Liberal Democrat members abstained, arguing that the current budget plans failed to address the issues of the economy, jobs, further education and the reform of public services.
Finance secretary John Swinney pointed out that the budget for 2011-12 was £1.3bn lower than the current financial year due to Westminster-imposed cuts.
But he insisted that the government’s spending plans would ‘ensure the resilience of the Scottish economy, promote front-line services and improve our environment’.
The bill, which protects spending on universal services like free personal care and concessionary fares, will ensure that the council tax freeze continues for the fourth successive year.
Swinney said all of Scotland’s 32 councils had provisionally accepted a finance deal on spending and council tax.
Following the vote, fresh talks will now be held with opposition parties on issues that remain the subject of dispute.
These include the administration’s plans to impose a higher business tax on large retailers – the so-called ‘Tesco tax’.
The SNP’s ability to press ahead with the proposal, which would generate £30m, is now in doubt following a decision by Holyrood’s local government committee on January 26 to reject it.
Swinney insisted he had produced a ‘balanced budget’. But he said that in talks with other parties he would be prepared to compromise as he had done in the past.
However, he warned: ‘Where other parties wish to make proposals for increasing expenditure in support of particular objectives I ask that they also bring forward proposals for identifying the resources to fund such changes.’
