The school meals row is only one aspect of the deal that looks to be in trouble, says David Maddox
THE Glenrothes by-election, like the Glasgow East one before it, will involve two governments going head-to-head on their records. So Alex Salmond, the First Minister and leader of the SNP, proclaimed yesterday as he launched his party's campaign, in
very similar terms to the way he kicked off the previous by-election. His view is that a popular Scottish Government will see off a desperately unpopular UK government in a historically safe seat for Labour.
But on the question of comparative records, the ground has shifted somewhat in the past few weeks, and not just because Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has been seemingly transformed from lame duck into world-saving superhero by his actions in the banking crisis.
The spotlight has fallen, too, on the Nationalists' own record in government, and doubts have been raised over the real effects of their achievements.
Most of all, the "historic" concordat with local authorities has apparently begun to unravel, with councils refusing to implement a key Scottish Government pledge.
The concordat is far more important to the SNP than it is historic, because it is probably the party's greatest achievement in power and the one thing Nationalists can, and regularly do, point to as making a real difference. As a result, a lot of the Scottish Government's political credibility is vested in its success, and failure will leave them with a far less substantial record in office.
But the dust that refuses to settle on the concordat has been kicked up over the issue of free school meals for all primary 1-3 pupils which, after a successful pilot in Fife, Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, said would be rolled out across Scotland.
"Oh no it won't," replied a large number of councils. "Not unless the Scottish Government finds us more money."
The reaction infuriated ministers, who insisted that, when councils signed the concordat last year, they also signed up to the promise to provide free schools meals.
This view was backed up by Pat Watters, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla), a leading Labour councillor who helped negotiate the deal.
But the councils' terse response was that the concordat did two things: first, it brought a council-tax freeze, which was the one obligation councils had if they did not want to receive less money, and second, it un-ringfenced local authorities' finances, meaning they could spend their cash as they pleased on their own priorities. This second point means the Scottish Government cannot force through its key pledges if councils wish to do things differently.
The result is that an administration, which has been accused of centralising government by freezing council tax and trying to bring in a new local tax regime that prevents councils raising money, has actually given powers away and reduced the strength of government at Holyrood. All this from a Nationalist government that apparently wants Holyrood to have far greater powers.
Nowhere is the battle being fought more keenly than in Glenrothes, where Peter, Grant, the SNP leader of Fife Council, is a candidate in the by-election. He has gone on record as saying the finances are there "in black and white" for his and every other local authority to pay for free school meals and his administration wants to provide them. But this was contradicted by Elizabeth Riches, his Liberal Democrat deputy, who said any suggestion the money was available was "premature". She went on: "It is mistaken of Councillor Grant to claim that £2 million of unallocated resources has been set aside for this purpose for 2009-10, rising to over £7 million in future years."
Her assessment was backed up by two senior council officers. Brian Lawrie, the director of finance and resources, said: "The current budget does not include costs associated with the introduction of free school meals."
And James McKinstry, the senior resources manager in education, confirmed: "The current three-year budget does not include the costs of the roll-out."
Yesterday, at his campaign launch, Mr Grant remained defiant that money had been provided for the school meals plan.
But, sitting next to the First Minister at the press conference, he made a crucial admission, without being contradicted: he said it was up to the other parties in the council to support it, along with the SNP members.
Douglas Chapman, the SNP education convener at Fife Council, who was also at the launch, confirmed to The Scotsman that this was true. And, echoing Mr Salmond's line at First Minister's Questions last week, he suggested that moral blackmail might be the way forward.
"But would the other parties really want to be seen to take the food out of children's mouths at difficult economic times such as this?" he asked. An effective line, but it does little to restore the Scottish Government's authority in terms of pushing through its key pledges.
There are other clashes yet to be fought out over the historic concordat. For example, councils also signed up to the aim of reducing class sizes (also in primary 1-3) to 18.
Added to that, the central plank of the concordat is the council-tax freeze and this, too, is in danger of unravelling unless John Swinney, the finance secretary, can find some £70 million for next year.
As things stand, the Scottish Government has lumbered itself with an agreement that has damaged its authority and could be too expensive to maintain. The question that remains is whether it is more damaging for the SNP to tear up the concordat, or continue to be defied by Scotland's councils.
The full article contains 968 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
