|
Briefing Document No 13 - Page 3 of 4
Local Government Finance - Continued.



Response (A) Scottish Executive
Although the former Minister for Local Government, Frank McAveety, has stated that he believes local government finance is a 'mess', the Executive still rejects calls for an independent review, citing the work carried out in partnership with CoSLA and suggesting that an inquiry would take too long.
The Executive has been working to meet some of the local authorities' concerns. There has been a major change of culture from the years of (Conservative) central government hostility to (mainly Labour) local authorities, which had been marked by shifting power away from local democratic control and capping of councils' spending. The rhetoric is now about partnership, capping has gone (though a "reserve power" is retained), there is greater flexibility for councils to retain unspent resources at the year end, and restrictions on capital spending have been relaxed. On 16th November, the Executive announced jointly with CoSLA that it would fund councils on a three-yearly basis (linked to the "simpler and fairer" distribution formula), in return for three-yearly council tax plans.
(B) Local Authorities
In general CoSLA seems happy to be working with an Executive that thinks responsible local government is basically a good idea and has given them increases in funding and a chance to set in place new capital projects with the 40% capital grant increase. Nevertheless, CoSLA still would like an independent review and has fears over financing the McCrone and Sutherland recommendations. They like the promise of a "power of general competence" (which would allow authorities to run any service they thought worthwhile and enter into new partnerships), but are worried that without the necessary resources to make it work it will be meaningless.
Local authorities also want to reclaim local control over non-domestic rating levels, arguing that this would restore effective links between councils and local businesses. At present, they resent "acting as collectors of a central government tax", although they recognise that much has to be done to allay business fears on this.
They are highly critical of "hypothecation" (where central government ring-fences amounts of money so that the council must spend it as the Executive wishes). The rationale for this is that it ensures the Executive's priorities are carried out; there is also a perception that people are happier paying taxes if they know exactly where the money is going (although the evidence for public support for ring-fencing may be only for a narrow range of taxation, e.g. road tolls). CoSLA argues that ring-fencing makes it extremely hard to apportion responsibility for locally delivered services, leading to central and local government blaming each other when things go wrong: "Local government's discretion over its funding must be more closely aligned with its discretion over its services - but increased discretion must also take account of local government's recognition that it must play its part in helping the Government of the day meeting its objective". Local outcome agreements between councils and the Scottish Executive are suggested by CoSLA, as a means of providing local flexibility to take forward local and national priorities.
There remain serious doubts as to whether the distribution formula has taken real account of deprivation, and Glasgow City Council has currently left CoSLA, disappointed that it did not take on board the Council's grievances. A period of formal consultation on the new grant allocations ends with an Executive/CoSLA meeting on 11 January, and Parliament will debate the settlement in February.



|