Andrew Samuel examines the suggestion that the Big Society concept lets the government off the hook when it comes to spending cuts.

A short while ago I was discussing the Big Society concept and had what I thought was a rather cynical notion put to me.

Quite simply, it was suggested that by decentralising regional expenditure and handing over the greatly hammered budgets to local bodies, government could effectively and efficiently shift the blame for the induced problems created by the inevitable huge cuts to services.

Your own people did it..." they'll be able to say, "...it wasn't us!"

Did I just hear of the first evidence of this yesterday?

A number of issues have made the media headlines around proposals by some local authorities to switch off or remove speed cameras following a cut in funding from Government.

To operate and maintain speed cameras costs local authorities an estimated £30m a year.

Leaving aside debates on fairness, the collective profit from the cameras that do catch speeding motorists, reportedly some £100 million a year, goes straight to the Treasury.

So with big cuts afoot and savings to be made, local authorities have said they can't afford to subsidise the running of their speed cameras and they'll have to go.

And here is my deep concern in one simple line as reported by The Guardian: "The Department for Transport said it was for local authorities to decide how road safety was funded and improved."