Who is in Charge?

For all the Scottish Parliament Committees this is a season of perplexity. It is later than usual for us to be reviewing the Scottish Government’s budget.

Only two of us in Parliament admit to being mathematicians – First Minister Jack McConnell and me. And I think there is only one accountant – my colleague Jim Mather.

So the scope for questions that focus on the budget’s numbers is more limited than it should be. And with each Minister having to appear in front of the relevant subject committees, that has to be disappointing. But there are other ways of analysing whether the budget makes sense.

In the Communities Committee this past week my focus was on accountability. Not whether the figures add up, but whether we know how the claimed benefits from all this expenditure will happen.

As an opposition we are regularly ‘on the case’ about National Health Service failings – among others. And just as regularly the Government will repeat their mantra that spending on the NHS has never been higher – record investments – highest priority.

And yet the regular feedback from patients is that little seems to be improving.

In local government it is much the same story.

Record grants from central government to councils and yet record rises in council taxes. With little evidence of the increased money reaching the front line.

I was listening to a carer’s tale the other day. More and more restrictions on access to money from Aberdeenshire Council. A very firm drive to restrict and delay access to the respite help that many carers need. And a dramatic rise in stress for them in consequence.

While the Government claims to “have provided record levels of funding to local government”. You get the picture.

Somewhere between Edinburgh and Peterhead there is a ‘black hole’ into which our money seems to be disappearing.

Now in the case of money for the councils we can see some of the problem. If the Government announces (say) a £20million initiative to help carers get respite care you would think that would mean £20million more for respite services.

But not necessarily. Governments these days will ‘ring fence’. They will say to councils, “Here is £500,000 which you must spend on respite care. You cannot spend it on anything else.”

If like most councils claim to be, you are under pressure from your local communities to spend more on something like roads, say, then you will gratefully accept the £500, 000 which must be spent on care. And say that’s great – that frees up £500,000 of “our own” money to spend on roads.

Only to make it less obvious, it may be that what the respite care budget in the council is used to buy may be changed. Or it will be raised a bit but by less than £500,000.

All of which means that firstly it is difficult for government to actually deliver half a million of improvement to respite care services delivered to our local council.

Now if you think like most politicians, there appears to be two possible answers to this problem. Either take the responsibility for respite care, or whatever, away from what central government sometimes describes with some irritation as ‘incompetent’ councils – actually they are all too competent at getting their own, rather than the government’s way. Or further restrict the ability of local councils to respond to local priorities by further removing choice as to how they may spend their money.

But in the Communities Committee questioning of the minister this year I took another approach, a businessman’s approach. I asked whose career would suffer if the Government failed deliver on its published objectives.

Initially the answer was that the Minister was ultimately responsible and would carry the can. Perfectly right and proper but ‘no banana’ if that failure failed to equip the next minister to deliver any more than the ‘failing’ one.

So I pursued my line by asking whether there was a civil servant whose career would falter.

And the lights went on in the Minister’s head. The answer turned out to be maybe.

Prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament there was of course a Scottish Government. But in practice this meant the civil service. Doing their best for us but without today’s detailed oversight.

Not every employee of the Scottish Executive has yet come to terms with this. They feel a job well done when they have sent the money to (say) councils. But have felt that delivering the benefit was someone else’s responsibility.

I suggested that one of staff should carry the can if the benefits of spending the money did not occur.

The Minister actually said that she would be taking my words back.

I think she actually feels in charge for the first time.