Local government settlement: McInnes warns of cuts ahead

5.41.00pm GMT Thu 7th Feb 2008

Speaking in parliament today, Alison McInnes refused to throw Lib Dem backing behind the SNP's local government settlement.

Describing the 'concordat' as opaque, she suggested the reason for the SNP abandoning ring-fencing for local authority spending was to avoid taking responsibility for any shortfalls that emerge once authorities have had the chance to break down the numbers.

"The removal of ringfencing might make council budgeting more flexible but by its nature it will put at risk initiatives which have been successful. Many local community groups have expressed concern that budget cuts are looming."

She continued, "We probably won't find out for some time. But we do know that when it happens, this government will refuse to admit the part it has played."

McInnes also highlighted a decrease in Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire's shares of the budget. She said, "These councils have historically had a poor share of the overall budget - the last administration had started, albeit slowly, to turn that around, and the councils were edging towards a fairer share of the Scottish budget. This year that has been reversed, and Aberdeen & Aberdeenshire have the worst settlement they have ever had - 85% and 88% of the Scottish average. This is grossly unfair. I would ask Mr Swinney to explain how that has come about."

She reserved particular condemnation for the SNP's decision to terminate direct capital funding to Regional Transport Partnerships. She told the Parliament that the decision was "deeply regrettable" adding, "Mr Swinney says on the one hand that he sees a role for RTPs and on the other that he will give them no funding."

She also addressed the SNP's threat to make the funding dependent upon authorities signing up to all aspects of the concordat. She said, "if they don't agree to everything then they will receive a reduced block grant - is that a new respect for local government?

"The Order is not without its good points, and therefore Liberal Democrats will not oppose it, but given these concerns and uncertainty, we cannot in good conscience support it."

Ends