Alastair MacNish: Well, does Scotland really need 32 councils?

The history of the current local government set-up in Scotland dates back to 1995, when 32 unitary authorities were created by the then UK Conservative government. It was clear at the time the number of authorities was more to do with political expediency than sound judgment on the most economically advantageous size of authority required.

Nevertheless, several of the new authorities became centres of excellence and a genuine feeling of being closer to their local communities was established in parts of Scotland.

Since then, and with finance becoming increasingly tight, local government has been set "efficiency saving" targets by the Scottish Government.

Sharing of services and joint procurement has been encouraged. While this has been successful in part, the overwhelming evidence suggests that limited progress has been made in the sharing of services. The recent Sir John Arbuthnott review, commissioned by authorities in the Clyde Valley area, identified where additional efficiency savings could be made over and above the target set by the Scottish Government. His report cries out for wholesale reorganisation, rather than further sharing of services across the current authorities.

The recent Independent Budget Review Panels' Report to the Scottish Parliament articulates clearly the extent of the financial crisis facing the public sector in Scotland. I concur with virtually all their recommendations. However under the section of the report "Structures", they argue that this needs to be carefully thought through and any changes not rushed into.

In respect of local government, I disagree fundamentally with this conclusion. Do we really need, or can we afford, 32 council leaders, 1,222 councillors, 32 chief executives, 32 heads of educational service, social service, etc, etc? Does it make any sense in this financial crisis to have, for example, two large finance departments servicing Lanarkshire, three roads and environmental health set-ups across Ayrshire … the list goes on and on throughout Scotland. The answer is a categorical "No".

I believe the number of mainland authorities can be reduced to 12 from the current 29 with minimum effect on frontline services.The revised boundaries required are consistent in the main with the previous regional council boundaries set-up and is, I would suggest, more logical and understandable than is currently the case.

If we were to reform local government, the savings accruing initially would be at least 10-15 million in the first year, net of severance costs, but this total would rise to a minimum of 100m per annum when full integration of services was achieved. Procrastination only delays the savings possible and adds further to the damaging effect on vital services to children, the elderly and the most vulnerable.

Local government in Scotland is there to ensure there are sufficient numbers of teachers, social workers, home-helps, roadmen, nursery staff, refuse collectors and the like to provide the basic services essential for the wellbeing of Scotland's communities whatever their circumstances. For too long these direct services have been adversely affected by the level of bureaucracy required to be maintained centrally by these 32 authorities.

I am well aware that implementation of this proposal will result in the loss of many jobs in central and support services across Scotland. Having spent my entire career in local government and witnessed first-hand the dedication of staff working in central services, I take no pleasure in recommending theses changes. But I believe them to be necessary.

Of course, the number of health boards, police and fire boards also need urgent review, but it is very clear that the most difficult political challenge will be to secure an agreement to a significant reduction in the number of local authorities. These changes in themselves would make alterations to police and fire easier and would allow for greater continuity with health board areas, which in themselves could be reconfigured.

There are other options available to the Scottish Government, such as centralisation of educational and other services, but I believe that primary services should be democratically accountable at local level and local government is best placed to undertake this duty.

Crawford Beveridge, chairman of the Review Panel, in his introduction to the report quoted Sir William Beveridge, "The first principle is that any proposals for the future … should not be restricted by consideration of sectional interests". I would be amazed if Cosla, Scotland's local authority collective body, will support these changes and will create all sorts of obstacles to resist such a move, though I hope I am wrong. The phrase "Turkeys and Christmas" comes to mind.

The changes should not be interpreted as opposition to local government and the vital services it delivers.Consistent with the move to larger authorities would be the transfer of relevant powers from Scottish Enterprise to the revised local authorities, creating further significant savings to the Scottish Government.

I believe it falls on the Scottish Parliament to take the initiative, set up a short-term review of local government with a view to a final report being presented to the new parliament for early consideration next year.

I would ask the leaders of all the main parties in Scotland not to make this issue a political football, but act collectively to progress as a matter of urgency this very difficult and soul searching agenda. No solution is perfect, but given the seriousness of the financial crisis facing the country, delay in decision-making which leads to protection of vested interests would be unforgivable. Times of crisis require decisive action; the people of Scotland deserve nothing less.

• Alastair MacNish, OBE, is a former chairman of the Accounts Commission for Scotland and former chief executive of South Lanarkshire Council.