Accountability is also a public service

Participants in the discussion of the Christie report on the future delivery of public services in Scotland (Newsnight Scotland, 29 June) voiced the fear that services were in danger of being “salami sliced” and “gradually eroded” rather than action being taken to address fundamental weaknesses.

It was clear that many of the report’s findings were already well known – for example from Beveridge’s Independent Budget Review and from reports by the Scottish Parliament’s health and sport committee on NHS board expenditure and the Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR) – all within the past 15 months.

There was a clear message that whereas action to correct fundamental weaknesses was taking place in England, this was not the case in Scotland where the findings of costly and well-evidenced reports have been largely ignored.

A paragraph in a briefing paper from the CPPR gives much cause for concern.

Rather than addressing fundamental problems, “it looks as if the Scottish Government will pass much of the accountability and responsibility for implementing cuts to other bodies.

“This would appear to be in the hope that, by avoiding taking the lead in such unpleasant deeds national politicians will also avoid taking the blame.”

This has already begun – for example where councils transfer responsibility for providing services or premises to private providers. It would seem important for the public to have a much greater understanding of these two issues: the government’s failure to act in response to well evidenced recommendations (even from committees set up by itself), and transferring blame for the consequences of inevitable cuts to other bodies.

John Womersley

Retired consultant in public health, NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde)

The Stell

Kirkcudbright

Your recent article on the funding of care costs for the elderly raises an interesting question in my mind.

On the basis that some people may be both willing and able to save for the considerable sums that may be required for their future care costs thus reducing the demands on the state, would the Treasury then in turn appropriately increase the inheritance tax threshold with a view to ensuring that some or all of any such assets not spent (for whatever reason) at time of death do not then fall within the threshold?

It seems appropriate that there might be some incentive and encouragement offered for those who plan to self fund the very significant future care costs that are envisaged.

Iain Liddell

Blinkbonny Road

Edinburgh