Idea of universal benefits threatened by SNP

Faced with a choice between the loss of public services or means-testing, the decision should be a simple one

As Edinburgh became the latest on the growing list of places to face the loss of vital community facilities – following years of SNP austerity that has cut council funding to the bone – it is time to have a tough, but honest, conversation about public funding of such places.

Facing a £3.6 million funding black hole, Edinburgh Leisure says eight sports and leisure venues – including the Portobello and Glenogle swim centres, pitches at Meggetland, and facilities at Wester Hailes High School and others in poorest parts of the city – could have to close without extra public money. And the capital is not alone in its plight.

East Lothian Council has backed emergency measures to close community facilities to address a £27m funding gap; Stirling Council could shut up to half of the county’s public libraries, and North Lanarkshire Council announced plans to close nearly 40 swimming pools, libraries and other facilities in September, only to reverse the decision after a public outcry; however, the financial pressures are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Humza Yousaf ’s shock announcement at the SNP’S conference last year of a renewed council tax freeze could add to councils’ troubles, given concerns that the Scottish Government will not provide sufficient funds to make up the shortfall despite a pledge to do so. So, many parts of Scotland are facing a stark choice: lose community facilities or find sources of extra funding.

Partly because of its incompetence in managing the economy and major public projects like the construction of two ferries, the Scottish Government is having to deal with its own funding black hole, so it is unlikely to ride to the rescue. Therefore, if we want swimming pools, libraries and other facilities to remain open, we may have to accept we need to pay more for them.

Subsidised fees for all may have once made sense, but in these straitened times, prices may have to reflect something much closer to the market cost. However, it would be a scandal if some people were priced out of ‘public’ facilities. If we want to be a truly progressive nation, those with the broadest shoulders should pay more, while those without the necessary means should not have to pay.

The ability of an unemployed parent to go swimming with their children, and have a hot shower, should not be considered a luxury in a civilised society, particularly as the transformative effect of sport has the power to help poor children build a better future for themselves. Sport and exercise also have extraordinary benefits for both physical and mental health. Indeed, as Edinburgh Leisure chief executive June Peebles said, it has been described as a “miracle pill”.

The pressure on councils echoes similar problems for other public services, like the NHS and higher education. Lengthy waiting times for medical treatment are prompting many to go private, while universities are turning away Scottish students while pursuing foreign ones for the income they bring.

In such situations, there should be a public debate about whether universal benefits – like free tuition, free prescription fees and subsidised gym memberships for all – are still affordable.

Certainly, if the choice is between a lack of reasonable access to services and closures or means-testing, then the decision should be a simple one. Reluctant politicians must face up to reality or the collapse of public services will only continue.