PAT WATTERS

Since the Budget announcement and the concordat outlining the new relationship between national and local government, much has been made of the removal of ring-fencing of a significant proportion of local government's budget.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) has largely ignored the claim and counter-claim about the benefits or otherwise of ring-fencing, and I would have continued to do so had it not been for the damage this is doing, and the concern it must be causing those most vulnerable groups referred to in these arguments.

In all of the debate, we should all remember that it is services that are delivered to these groups that are important, not the detailed nature of the bureaucratic arrangements that govern financial settlements.

I am entering this debate, not on a party political basis, but in an attempt to provide reassurance to vulnerable members of our communities and those who make provision for them that removal of ring-fencing can lead to better, more effective services - not, as some claim, the opposite.

I want to make three points about the removal of ring-fencing. Cosla campaigned long and hard for the removal of ring-fencing simply because it was a grossly inefficient system.

We had 60 different funds accounted for separately, all requiring individual detailed reporting to government and none of which could be used easily in combination with other funds to provide effective services.

The bureaucracy of ring-fencing was staggering and its demise will see more funding available for direct service provision to communities, rather than it being wasted on needless and useless reporting.

Concern has been expressed that, as ring-fencing is removed, vulnerable groups will not be guaranteed the service they have previously had. The argument goes that these groups are not numerically or electorally important, therefore they can easily be ignored. This is both a slur on local government politicians and a silly argument.

Does anybody really believe that if a section of the community is electorally unimportant, it is more likely to be protected by central government politicians than local ones?

Local politicians meet and work with these groups as part of their daily and weekly business. It is inconceivable that their needs, their aspirations, and their required services will not impinge on the decision-making of local councils as they make their local budget decisions. Long before devolution and the Scottish Government was in place, Scottish councils and councillors were protecting these people from the worst ravages of previous governments.

It is ironic that we have heard more from some opposition parties about these groups as part of an attack on the government's Budget than we have ever heard over the last eight years.

Lastly, questions have been asked regarding how parliament will hold local government accountable for spend in the absence of ring-fencing. The answer is - it won't, and it never did. Local government is a distinct elected sphere in Scotland and is accountable to its electorate, not to parliament.

Cosla has developed a new relationship with the current Scottish Government which sets out joint priorities and agrees a joint way of assessing progress against these.

This process of partnership ensures we are all accountable to local people for the quality of public services in a way that the blunt instrument of ring-fencing never could.

Under the previous executive, Cosla was promised a year-on-year reduction in ring-fencing, so it is difficult to see why such a fuss is being made by the simple acceleration of that process.


  • Councillor Pat Watters is president of Cosla