The First Minister has doubled down on his criticism of West Lothian’s budget decision on funding cross- boundary private nursery places.
Responding to a letter from West lothian’s Labour council leader Lawrence Fitzpatrick, John Swinney said: “It is untenable for families‘to be so affected by boundary lines.”
The council leader told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “Mr Swinney is being totally disingenuous.”
The row started after the First Minister slated the budget decision taken by the minority Labour led administration in Livingston to restrict Fortune Follows the Child Funding to council- run nurseries only for families living out with West Lothian.
Labour argued that this would save more than £700,000 and protect the council- run nurseries which provide spaces for more than 3,000 children in West Lothian.
At the moment 104 children from outside the county attend private nurseries within West Lothian. Funding will stop in August.
Responding to a letter from Councillor Fitzpatrick last week the First Minister said: “My view on this matter remains unchanged.
“I am deeply concerned by reports that children currently settled in ELC settings in West Lothian who happen to reside on the other side of a boundary line are to be uprooted from these arrangements and their families left searching at short notice for alternative high quality provision that meets their particular needs.
“Many of these children will have attended their chosen setting from an early age and will have established relationships with staff and peers.”
Mr Swinney concluded his letter of Wednesday last week by saying: “Cross–boundary provision and the delivery of the principles of Funding Follows the Child are clearly issues that the next Government will need to prioritise. It is untenable in my view for families‘experience of funded ELC to be so affected by boundary lines, when we collectively set out to deliver an ELC expansion that would improve flexibility and choice for families.
“As First Minister for all of Scotland’s families, it is my responsibility to represent the views and concerns of all Scotland’s families, and I make no apology for so doing.”
Responding this week Councillor Fitzpatrick wrote: “It is disappointing … that your response continues to focus on statutory guidance, and that you do not feel able to acknowledge, as your officials have, that the duty placed on each Council by statute is to the residents of its own area. It is disappointing that this continues to get in the way of clear and transparent debate in the Scottish Parliament.”
The council leader added: “I note your desire to prioritise cross-border provision, should you be in a position to do so following the next election it is clearly within the gift of the Scottish Parliament to resolve this issue.
“A sustainable level of funding of local authorities would be an important first step.
West Lothian Council was faced with agreeing budget reductions of £18.9 million across the two years 2026/27 and 2027/28 in order to deliver a balanced budget.”
And he concluded by reminding the First Minister that West Lothian SNP councillors had proposed no alternative to the restricted funding: “All political groups who voted, including the SNP in motions/amendments agreed to cut £711K over 2026/27 of providing non-West Lothian children placing options in private nurseries. They accepted that there would be no adverse impact on the Council’s ability to provide ELC to residents of West Lothian.
“It remains the case that non-residents would continue to be able to choose ELC provision in West Lothian.”
By Stuart Sommerville Local Democracy Reporter
Typical Fitzpatrick response! “Mair money will solve it” but forgets to say where he would take the money from. Maybe if his party, Labour, had proposed a budget at Holyrood we would have an idea of Labour’s political priorities! When the used to prepare an alternative Holyrood budget, on no single occasion did Labour propose giving more money to Councils. This is a Council which has been given above inflation funding settlements for the past 6 years at least.
Then he pulls the squirrel from the bag by declaring that every party voted for the savings. Whilst the alternative budget from the SNP was not a line by line forensic financial re ital, at least the opposition group did what opposition are supposed to do. They put forward an alternative budget. They voted against the Tory/Labour administration budget.
Even if the Government were to make even more funding available, Fitzpatrick would complain that it’s “ring fenced” as if that means it’s not being spent on council services! It means it’s been given for a specific purpose and had to be spent on that purpose. We have seen Labour councils take the money then want to spend it on something else! Then have the stupidity to complain that they didn’t get the ‘ring fenced’ allocation.
Comments are closed.