By David Scott
8 April 2010
Public services in Scotland will need to be restricted or withdrawn as part of a redefined relationship between the state and the individual, an influential budget review group has been told.
According to leading public finance officials, the scale of spending cuts required is so serious that no option can be ruled out, including whether to keep a national health service free at the point of delivery.
In a submission to the independent panel set up by the Scottish Government to review its budget, CIPFA Scotland said different and radical thinking was required.
It warned: ‘Politicians and public service managers will be faced with decisions which will result in future services almost certainly being restricted or even withdrawn.’
Emphasising that all options must be considered, the submission added: ‘This means that a fundamental starting point should be that all frontline services are the subject of objective review and challenge. It should not be a pre-condition that some services are protected.’
The review panel, chaired by Crawford Beveridge, a former chair of development agency Scottish Enterprise, is seeking evidence from a wide range of bodies.
Its remit is to put forward choices and options on public spending in advance of the UK Comprehensive Spending Review.
CIPFA has proposed three objectives for change: a review and redefinition of the relationship between the state and the individual; the devolution of more decisions to local bodies (with a reduction in the scale of national oversight); and more collaboration across government and public services. It suggested that consideration should be given to defining minimum core services and to charging for additional services or service enhancements.
While core services would include health and social care, issues such as ‘whether a national health service free at the point of delivery in Scotland remains affordable’ and the age at which retirement pensions should be paid would be open to challenge. There is no alternative to radical changes as cuts to public services are likely to be even deeper than those in the 1970s.
8 April 2010
Public services in Scotland will need to be restricted or withdrawn as part of a redefined relationship between the state and the individual, an influential budget review group has been told.
According to leading public finance officials, the scale of spending cuts required is so serious that no option can be ruled out, including whether to keep a national health service free at the point of delivery.
In a submission to the independent panel set up by the Scottish Government to review its budget, CIPFA Scotland said different and radical thinking was required.
It warned: ‘Politicians and public service managers will be faced with decisions which will result in future services almost certainly being restricted or even withdrawn.’
Emphasising that all options must be considered, the submission added: ‘This means that a fundamental starting point should be that all frontline services are the subject of objective review and challenge. It should not be a pre-condition that some services are protected.’
The review panel, chaired by Crawford Beveridge, a former chair of development agency Scottish Enterprise, is seeking evidence from a wide range of bodies.
Its remit is to put forward choices and options on public spending in advance of the UK Comprehensive Spending Review.
CIPFA has proposed three objectives for change: a review and redefinition of the relationship between the state and the individual; the devolution of more decisions to local bodies (with a reduction in the scale of national oversight); and more collaboration across government and public services. It suggested that consideration should be given to defining minimum core services and to charging for additional services or service enhancements.
While core services would include health and social care, issues such as ‘whether a national health service free at the point of delivery in Scotland remains affordable’ and the age at which retirement pensions should be paid would be open to challenge. There is no alternative to radical changes as cuts to public services are likely to be even deeper than those in the 1970s.
