Dave Watson

Council Budgets

2012-02-09T23:04:00.000Z

Councils across Scotland are setting their budgets in the context of a 6% cut in the allocation from the Scottish Government. That resulted in a loss of 13,300 jobs last year and we can expect a similar number this year. That will have a further devastating impact on local economies as that spending power is stripped away.

As it is an election year councils are shying away from big unpopular service cuts. It is the workforce through the pay freeze that are making the largest contribution to spending reductions. Most services will be salami sliced in an effort to spread the pain and hope that not too many people notice the decline in services and standards.

Of course councils would normally have the option of considering the appropriate level of Council Tax to fund local priorities. But in Scotland today councils are reduced to administrative machines instructed to carry out the Scottish Government's priorities. Freeze the Council tax and accept our priorities, or you get another 5.4% chopped from your budget. It's not as if the priorities are even sensible. The fiction of 1000 extra police officers 'on the streets' is maintained by sacking huge numbers of police staff and taking police officers 'off the streets' to do their jobs, often badly and at greater cost.

Local democracy is important. We should have local government - not local administration. This week I attended another excellent Nordic Horizons event in Parliament discussing Scandinavian approaches to local government. There they have real local democracy with councils of a size to represent real communities and taxation powers to match. Councils that know what municipal enterprise is really about. While our reform agenda centralises power and thinks the only form of efficiency is economy of scale.

This week UNISON Scotland has set out a better way in our manifesto for local government. Reform that starts from the bottom up with services designed by staff and service users, not management consultants. Devolution, not just from Westminster, but away from Holyrood to local communities. Integrating services, not devising tax dodging mechanisms that will return local services to the chaos of the 19th Century. A revitalised local government that plays a crucial role in reducing inequality to help create the fairer and better Scotland we want to live in.

Every day we all use the services provided by local government. Many people don’t even notice them as we take them for granted. The council elections on 3 May will bring a much needed focus on the importance of local government and the essential services it provides. And not a moment too soon!

National Libraries Day

2012-02-04T14:47:00.000Z

Today is National Libraries Day. An opportunity to celebrate our public library service at a time when it is under threat from public sector cuts. I have to declare an interest as a serious book lover in paper and electronic forms. I also have huge respect for librarians as a profession. After more than thirty years of representing them as a trade union official I have met many great union activists from this profession.

And I am obviously not alone. Many authors have come forward today to speak up for libraries including Kate Mosse who said,

“The brick and glass presence of libraries at the heart of our towns and cities gives the unequivocal message that books matter, that imagination matters, that the principles of free and fair access to literature and education to all matter. The most democratic of spaces, libraries are places where anyone - regardless of age or sex or background, their ambitions and opportunities (or lack of them) - is welcome and on an equal basis and for free. Libraries are home to the readers of today and the writers of tomorrow”

On National Libraries Day, we rightly celebrates the wonderful service that library staff in local libraries provide to communities across Scotland. Libraries, community learning centres and access points provide an ever more vital role in this time of recession and economic uncertainty. They provide accessible education and entertainment for people facing pay freezes, job insecurity or unemployment and rising costs.

But our library services themselves are increasingly under threat from cuts. Many councils are cutting opening hours, cutting jobs (particularly professional posts), and reducing the materials budgets. This is a false economy. Councillors and candidates in the forthcoming Scottish council elections should be campaigning for decent library provision and proper staffing levels, not cuts to this vital service.

I'll finish with Julia Donaldson, Waterstones Children’s Laureate, who has written a dedicated poem to celebrate National Libraries Day.

Everyone is welcome to walk through the door.
It really doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor.
There are books in boxes and books on shelves.
They’re free for you to borrow, so help yourselves.

Come and meet your heroes, old and new,
From William the Conqueror to Winnie the Pooh.
You can look into the Mirror or read The Times,
Or bring along a toddler to chant some rhymes.

The librarian’s a friend who loves to lend,
So see if there’s a book that she can recommend.
Read that book, and if you’re bitten
You can borrow all the other ones the author’s written.

Are you into battles or biography?
Are you keen on gerbils or geography?
Gardening or ghosts? Sharks or science fiction?
There’s something here for everyone, whatever your addiction.

There are students revising, deep in concentration,
And school kids doing projects, finding inspiration.
Over in the corner there’s a table with seating,
So come along and join in the Book Club meeting.

Yes, come to the library! Browse and borrow,
And help make sure it’ll still be here tomorrow.

Facility time for workplace union representatives

2012-01-24T14:26:00.001Z

Today’s Scotsman is running the latest instalment in a series of attacks on trade union facility time, with a focus on the public sector. It follows on from similar stories in the Telegraph, Daily Mail etc and a range of Freedom of Information requests from the so called Tax Payers Alliance. In fairness to the Scotsman, today's article is at least a more balanced presentation of the issue.

The ConDem coalition has not as yet announced a detailed attack on facility time as part of their broader undermining of employment rights (see my blog post last week on fairness in employment). However, another shadowy right wing group the Trade Union Reform Campaign, set up by Tory MP Aidan Burley, has denounced facility time in the public sector as a “public subsidy” of unions. The Prime Minister endorsed the attack on facility time in the House of Commons after the November 30 strike, saying, “I don’t think that is right and we are going to put that to an end.” Francis Maude has announced a review of facility time in the civil service.

The last UK Labour Government conducted a review of facility time and published a series of recommendations including positive examples of the effective role of workplace representatives. This led to a revised ACAS Code of Practice in January 2010. So the law and practice has been recently reviewed. The arrangements were launched with support right across the public and private sectors, as well from trade unions and employer organisations.

The TUC has produced a rebuttal to the latest attacks in their publication The Facts about Facility Time. Some key statistics include:

• Overall productivity gains worth between £4bn to 12bn to the UK economy;

• Savings of at least £19 million as a result of reducing dismissals;

• Savings to employers of between £82m - £143m in recruitment by reducing early exits.

• UK GDP value of the work of ULRs in encouraging training is estimated at £6 billion.

UNISON has also produced a guide to facility time. This sets out the statutory entitlements and the key service group agreements as well an explanation of what facility times is used for.
Local reps help to sort out problems before they become serious. Reps with sufficient time will be able to tackle grievances or disputes at a local level before they mushroom. This will often save time and money by preventing the need for cases to go to a higher level of management or Employment Tribunal.

Union reps make a big contribution to the management of change. Large scale reorganisation, major new agreements or changes to legislation put big burdens on HR departments. Working with a team of skilled union reps can ease the workload and improve the results. Union reps can facilitate change by explaining the procedure, supporting members and ensuring that the process is carried out correctly. Facility time assists the employer in fulfilling their legal responsibilities towards employees; providing support and representation to individuals and as a mechanism

Most employer organisations are on record as supporting the role of the workplace representative and appropriate facility time. But that won’t stop ideology getting in the way of the facts.

PS. The Morning Star has a report this morning (25 January) on the Tory Trade Union Reform Group meeting with Eric Pickles.

Fairness in Employment?

2012-01-17T17:05:00.000Z

The Prime Minister is making a big play of his 'fairness' agenda at present. So let's see how far his concept of fairness stretches into employment rights.

The first major attack, to be implemented this April, is on the Employment Tribunal system. The qualifying period for unfair dismissal is to be lengthened from one year to two. The next proposal is to charge workers to access Employment Tribunals as much as £1,250 for a full hearing, more if the claim exceeds £30,000. There are also a number of procedural changes proposed including new Pre-Claim Conciliation arrangements, wider powers for Employment Judges to strike out claims, higher cost orders and reducing the role of lay Tribunal members.

Other attacks on employment rights include:

Taking away legal advice safeguards in compromise agreements
A 'Rapid Resolution Scheme' for straightforward claims
Introduction of 'protected conversations' - a licence to bully employees.
A 'compensated no-fault' dismissal scheme for smaller firms together with wider reforms to make it easier to dismiss by reducing procedural safeguards.
Reducing the consultation period on collective redundancies and weakening consultation rights, particularly for trade unions.
Similar proposals to weaken TUPE provisions.

The UK Government also consulted on family-friendly rights earlier last year. That proposed a range of changes, in fairness several positive, to extend the right to request flexible working, parental leave for fathers to attend antenatal appointments, carry over and buying out annual leave and powers for ETs to order pay equality audits in limited circumstances. However, we are still awaiting a government response and the suspicion is that these modest changes will be spun to sweeten the major attacks on workers rights.

Pension auto-enrolment was supposed to start this year, but the government has announced a delay for employers with fewer than 3,000 employees. The gradual increase in employer pension contributions is also to be delayed. These measures are aimed at creating a pensions saving culture for those workers excluded from schemes by employers who are happy to have the taxpayer subsidise their responsibilities. While at the same time the same bosses boost their own massive pensions.

I have commented earlier on changes to health and safety law. Barely a day goes by without a report of an industrial accident or illness, often with tragic consequences. Grayrigg and this week's cruise ship disaster should remind us that health and safety is probably the most important protection workers and their families have. We did not vote to die at work.

While some of the proposals are presented as simplifying the system, in reality they mostly have the aim of reducing workers rights, making it easier for unscrupulous employers to sack staff. As always it will be low paid workers who suffer most, primarily through charging for access to justice. The government's arguments about rising claims and cost simply don't stack up. If you strip out the multiple equal pay cases the number of ET applications are falling. Far from inhibiting new businesses the UK already has some of the weakest employment legislation in the world. A World Bank study confirmed that the UK is the third easiest place to start and run a company after Hong Kong and New Zealand. The Chair of the Independent Tribunals council said the suggested ET changes would "bring little benefit to employers or to the tribunal system while having a disproportionate and chilling effect on employees."

Many will rightly see these attacks as a return to the Thatcher era. A key feature of that period was the increasing reliance on EU employment standards. There are a wide range of employment law proposals at various stages of the EU legislative process. They include revisions to the Working Time and Posted Workers Directives, pensions, migrant workers rights, pregnant workers, equal pay and carers leave. Given the current political balance in the EU it may be difficult to make progress on many of these. However, EU law may again be an important safeguard for British workers.
There may also be unforeseen consequences. Cutting unfair dismissal rights may mean a switch to claims based on other rights that don't have a qualifying period. These claims are often more complex and time consuming for tribunals. An increase in cases to the civil courts is also a possibility. It could also lead to a change in approach from trade unions. If there is no effective legal redress then industrial action becomes the only alternative. Some of us can remember the days when disputes around unfair dismissal were much more common than today. Even in unorganised workplaces, the absence of lawful solutions can lead to other forms of protest.

The government also fails to see the obvious economic consequences. Insecure workers do not take out mortgages or make larger purchases. This drives down demand exacerbating the already serious consequences austerity measures are having on growth. As Brendan Barber pointed out good employers have little to fear from tribunal claims; "if firms treated their staff fairly, few would ever find themselves taken to court." This is another consequence of the attack on workers rights. It creates a race to the bottom were the bad employers drag the good ones down to the sewer.

Underlying this issue is a debate on the sort of UK we want to live in. Do we want the UK to become a low wage, insecure place to work? Driving down living standards for the many, while the rich and powerful exploit a compliant workforce. If that's Cameron's definition of 'fairness', he can keep it.

The year ahead

2012-01-10T17:18:00.000Z

Happy New Year! Although I am probably going to describe a year ahead that looks far from happy. I am back at work after a decent break and thinking about the year ahead as I trundle home on a train from London.

Of course there are a number of positive things I will wish for in 2012. Fulham winning the Premier League and FA Cup; Lancashire retaining the County Championship; keeping to my post- Xmas diet; lowering my golf handicap and reading more of the growing pile of books on the ‘to read’ shelf or stacking up on the Kindle.

However, reality intervenes and I need to focus on the more likely challenges in the year ahead.

On the bargaining front it looks like another difficult year. Pay will need to return to the top of the agenda as the pay freeze continues to undermine standards of living. Public service reform will also be a big issue this year with health and social care integration, police and fire reorganisation some of the early challenges. Public bodies will try and meet ever diminishing budgets by constantly reorganising in the search for often illusory efficiency savings. We also need to sort out how we approach procurement in Scotland. 2011 wasn’t a good year for well thought out procurement and although we had a lot of success in stopping some of the worst ones; there are better ways of tackling these issues.

Pensions will remain high on the bargaining agenda. I was in London today to discuss the proposed framework for further negotiations on the schemes in England and Wales. It was helpful to get an accurate description of recent events from the General Secretary after some of the nonsense that has been published. Our elected representatives on the service group executives have sanctioned further negotiations as the way ahead. We will pursue our own negotiations on the Scottish pension schemes.

The ConDem coalition will seek to attack workers rights under the guise of reducing business burdens. Unfair dismissal rights lost for the first two years, starting in April. This is to be followed by attacks on TUPE and collective redundancy consultation. The weakest employment rights in Western Europe are far from a burden on anyone. But worse of all is the assault on health and safety. Too many workers die or are injured every day at work. Recent figures show that less than 3% of complaints to the HSE result in prosecutions in Scotland and even FAIs are not happening when they should. So much for the safety culture.

Politically we will have local government elections for every council seat. This is the first time for a while that we have had stand alone council elections in Scotland and that should give a welcome focus on local government issues. I have been finalising a draft UNISON Scotland manifesto for the elections that highlights a range of issues of concern to members. The PR system doesn’t always deliver radical change at ward level, but we will have to wait and see. Increasing centralisation and punitive budgets will make this a difficult year for councils whoever wins the elections.

It won’t be much better for health boards despite the slightly higher funding levels. Real costs will exceed the notional inflation allowance and demand will rise through demographic change in particular.

At the national level we have new party leaders who will want to make their mark in 2012. Johann Lamont in particular has a difficult job knitting together all the elements of the Scottish Labour Party into a cohesive unit. Blairites will no doubt continue to plot away, undermining Ed Miliband at UK level and we will need to work hard to ensure none of that nonsense strays north of the border.

The legislative programme in the Scottish Parliament is not huge, but there will be some interesting issues. The Scotland Bill should grind out to a conclusion and it appears that Westminster might force the pace on the independence referendum. On the one hand any involvement of Cameron in Scotland plays badly. On the other, three more years of blaming Westminster for every ill in Scotland is going to get very monotonous. We will try and steer the debate away from the constitutional detail onto what sort of Scotland we want early in the New Year and I have just finished a discussion paper on that very issue.

We will want to refresh our Public Works campaign this year to continue to make the case against the ideological attack on public services. There is a better way and we need to find new ways of getting the message across.

Sadly, not a lot of good things to look forward to. In fact it looks like a long list of the euphemistically phrased ‘challenges’. One positive is the way we faced up to the challenges last year. Lots of good people working together to fight for what we believe in. More of that in 2012 and we won’t go far wrong. Oh and Fulham might win the double!

PFI is dead - long live PFI!

2011-12-23T14:17:00.000Z

Scottish Ministers are fond of saying that Scotland is being "set free from the shackles of PFI". Sadly this misrepresents the continuing widespread use of private finance in public infrastructure through a range of PPP models. It's an old trick of political spin to change a name or two, but it's substance that matters.

Despite vociferous criticism of the previous administration's use of PPP/PFI, the Scottish Government is planning one of the largest PPP programmes in Europe. Ministers avoid using the acronym PPP, although officials when pressed do own up.

Instead they refer to NPD (Non-Profit Distributing Trusts). The NPD model is simply a cosmetic change to existing PFI schemes. It retains the higher borrowing costs, private profit at the contractor level and elements of the risk transfer costs all leading to the same profiteering and inflexibility inherent in PFI.

The other rebranding is called the Hub initiative, which uses Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) PPP contracts for „community facilities e.g. health centres, schools, police & fire services. The Hub initiative is based on the English Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) health PFI scheme. Also, waste infrastructure contracts are based on English PFI ones and the National Housing Trust is a form of PPP.

So why are we returning to PPP via this elaborate political spin? To be fair these PPP schemes are better than their predecessors, but that would be true of every private finance scheme as the procurement staff learn lessons, at the taxpayers expense. The real reason is a complex mix of off-balance sheet financing and the relentless chase for the free lunch. Enron economics are alive and well in Scotland.

What's the alternative?

PPP/PFI contract buyouts that produce savings. A 2011 SFT review didn't calculate potential savings because, it said, "termination would bring assets back into the public sector for accounting purposes and the capital budget required for this is not currently affordable". In other words Enron economics.
Prudential borrowing for health boards to plug the biggest gap in the conventional borrowing regime.
Provide a genuine level playing field, with Scottish Government funding support offered to new projects irrespective of the proposed method of procurement.
Extend Freedom of Information laws to all companies and other bodies providing public services. The capacity to effectively scrutinise the true costs of PPP is essential.

The bottom line is that every objective analysis and countless parliamentary reports all show that private finance is less flexible and more expensive than conventional borrowing. But weaning politicians off it is proving very difficult indeed.

Scottish Living Wage

2011-12-08T21:46:00.000Z

I was giving evidence yesterday to the Scottish Parliament Local Government and Regeneration Committee as part of their living wage inquiry.

It can be argued that there has been a greater focus in recent years on tackling poverty in families with children and older people than those at work. The living wage is a key element in tackling poverty for those at work and the Scottish Living Wage Campaign has been at the forefront of efforts to extend this concept in Scotland.

The living wage is intended to provide a level of pay that adequately allows workers to provide for themselves and their families. The current rate in Scotland is £7.20 per hour. This is paid to staff in the direct employment of the Scottish Government including the NHS. Seven local authorities have adopted the Scottish Living Wage, most notably Glasgow that has also encouraged a wider take up in the city.

This still leaves 18,432 workers (7%) in local councils who are paid below the living wage. There are also around 350,000 workers in Scotland earning below this level including many in the private and voluntary sector who provide public services. For this reason the committee focused in my panel on how we can expand the coverage of living wage.

Some local authorities claim they can't implement the living wage because of single status and equal pay. This is simply an excuse for inaction. The easiest way to implement is by collapsing increments at the bottom of the scale as in NHS Scotland. While this may impact on differentials, it doesn't of itself create an equal pay claim. The other is by a top up payment that might create a theoretical equal pay claim. However, there is a Genuine Material Factor defence that can be objectively justified on several grounds.

Expanding the living wage to the voluntary and private sector can be done through procurement. Legal advice to government and councils has highlighted the risk of challenge under EU procurement rules. Again there are ways of addressing this following the example of London and other councils elsewhere in the UK.

Finally, all those giving evidence emphasised the importance of establishing a Living Wage Unit. It could promote the living wage, give advice on the perceived barriers and provide practical support to public and private sector bodies that recognise the value the living wage brings to their organisation and the wider economy.

In all a very good evidence session and I hope the committee brings forward some positive recommendations.

Scotland and human rights

2011-12-06T16:44:00.000Z

Last week I attended a lecture and dinner with Shami Chakribarti, Director of Liberty, at the University of Edinburgh. Her theme was 'A man's a man for a'that - Scotland and the Human Rights Act.

Her main point was that it's easy to sentimentalise Scottish, British or "western values" as if they always came easily or as if people around the world don't also strive for dignity, equal treatment and fairness. At a time when many at Westminster seek to replace universal "human rights" with "British rights" or citizens' privileges, she encouraged Scotland not to follow this trend. In this shrinking interconnected world, we should not choose to be citizens somewhere but rather human beings everywhere.

A key target for her concern was the proposed Bill of Rights for the UK, as against the universal rights that were developed after the carnage of the Second World War. She highlighted three specific concerns:

Attacks on the European Court of Justice in decisions such a prisoner voting. These attacks fail to understand that the ECHR is now integrated into our system of justice. Not forgetting the irony of attacks on judges from those who preach the rule of law to others.
Judges overturning the decisions of elected representatives. Most democratic states recognise that there have to be underpinning rights that protect people against arbitrary law making. Those advocating a Bill of Rights should also recognise that in jurisdictions that adopt this model, judges tend to be much more interventionist and powerful.
That we risk only giving legal rights to the 'worthy citizen' as against the principle of equal treatment. Deportation and immigration cases illustrate this point well.

There is a perception, at least from an English angle, that Scotland is more relaxed on these points. A less excitable tabloid press certainly helps and Shami argued that she was optimistic because people across the UK are generally supportive of essential human rights. The problem is a perception that they are OK for us, but perhaps less so for others. Immigration cases reflect this point.

I am not convinced that Scots necessarily take a more positive view than the rest of the UK and I illustrated this with some examples from my own experience of anti-racism work. However, I do believe that we can win the argument that Scots are human beings before we are citizens.

Shami did touch on some topical Scottish issues. A concern that the benign Scottish influence over human rights might be lost if Scotland became independent. Either way she hoped we would support human rights not Scottish rights, whatever our constitutional future. She also warned against 'dangerously broad' definitions of speech offences in the proposed football offences legislation. She accepted that the objectives of the Bill are laudable, but experience of speech offences is that they must be closely defined. The broad anti-terrorist legislation provisions of 'glorifying terrorism' as against the clearer incitement to murder or racial hatred.

The evening was a timely reminder for me of the importance of our human rights framework. Human rights standards and principles apply to each of us equally. Compliance with these rights should be mainstreamed in the design and delivery of public services. they can be used as a tool to argue for better and fairer services. The work of the Liberty and the Human Rights Consortium Scotland in highlighting these issues deserves support.

Politics of the pensions dispute

2011-12-01T12:19:00.000Z

Last month I posted some reflections on the politics of the current pension dispute. After yesterday's historic strike I believe some update is warranted.

The ConDems got themselves in a guddle from the outset. Firstly, we were told the strike will ruin the economy costing £500m and then it was all a damp squib. Self evidently both cannot be correct. Of course it was only a damp squib if you view the world from the No.10 bunker or your normal social circle of bankers and hedge fund managers. For those in the real world it was an amazing day of protest for pensions justice, as the pictures alone show so clearly. The Autumn Statement the day before just added fuel to the fire.

For the SNP they started with a clear political strategy that deftly avoided the Scottish pensions tax for staff in the LGPS (Scotland) when it became clear there were no Barnett consequentials. They could have used some of the additional £675m efficiency savings to offset the consequentials from the NHS and other schemes. However, they made the political judgement that this money could be better used elsewhere, with the big added advantage of being able to blame Westminster. It will all be fine when we are independent. Treasury 'cash grab' was the soundbite, we actually used this first, but that's fine because that's exactly what it is.

So far so good until Labour MSPs decided to oppose business in Parliament on the Day of Action. The SNP then made a poor tactical decision to hold another debate on pensions (they had one only 10 days before) that meant crossing picket lines. John Swinney, I suspect unintentionally, gave the impression that he was boasting that he crossed a picket line. Then very awkward pictures for the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament picket line. This all went down badly and at the Glasgow rally, when that picture went up, he was loudly booed by most of the 2000+ people present. A rare experience for the normally politically astute FM.

Trade unions broadly welcome the Scottish Government's support for the campaign, but yesterday was about solidarity on the streets and picket lines, not posturing as part of a referendum strategy. A number of mainly West of Scotland SNP MSPs would understand that, but other colleagues clearly didn't.

As for Labour. Well at UK level they started by falling back into the New Labour trap of worrying about being associated with strikes. They just didn't get the scale of this strike and as a consequence sounded like Kenny Dalglish on a bad day - maybe yes, maybe no. In fairness, Ed Miliband redeemed himself somewhat at Prime Minister's Questions.

Scottish Labour generally played a blinder. Ian Gray's measured arguments in favour of showing solidarity went down well on the media and with those taking action. He was supported by many MSP's on picket lines and rallies. Yes, of course the Labour Leadership candidates had an interest in attracting votes, but they didn't make the judgement call. Most of them simply reflected the mood of the Party.

So, the scores at the end of the day. ConDem's nil - didn't even try. SNP 1, for getting the principle but let down by poor tactics. Scottish Labour, full marks for not only making the case, but for being out there showing solidarity when it matters.

Autumn statement and Scotland

2011-11-29T22:32:00.000Z

Not a good day at the office for George Osborne. Up to the dispatch box to tell us that the coalition's main political promise would be broken. The deficit won’t be paid off by the end of this parliament - maybe by 2016-17? Aye that will be right!

Excessive borrowing, the claimed Labour disease, is clearly spreading to the ConDems with £158bn more borrowing over the next four years than it planned a year ago. Cash that won’t even be spent stimulating the economy, instead he will be borrowing to pay for unemployment and lost tax receipts of the newly jobless. The much vaunted growth forecasts have been downgraded by the OBR to just short of another recession.

And what will Scotland get from this dogs breakfast? Well it’s very difficult to see from the 98 pages of the Autumn Statement. Not even a supplementary Barnett consequentials paper on the Treasury website. The Scotland Office tells us “Scotland will receive an additional £433m in Barnett consequentials for capital projects.” And the revenue consequentials? No one seems to know. Not in the documents. Not in the Scotland Office statement. I understand phone calls from Scottish Government officials to the Treasury have not produced an answer. So John Swinney is left saying “the Treasury are so far unable to tell so how much our revenue budget is to fall.” It all gives the impression of a hastily cobbled together plan.

We don’t even get the capital straight away. The nominal figures are £50 million for 2011-12, followed by £68.3 million, £141.9 million and £172.3 million in subsequent years, eventually totalling £432.5 million.

What we do know is there’s plenty of other bad news in the Statement for Scottish workers and their families:

· Raising the state pension age to 67 by 2026. Further proof you can’t trust this Government on pensions.

· More public sector job cuts. 710,000 across the UK and that could mean around 70,000 in Scotland

· A public sector pay cap of 1% for the next two years when inflation is topping 5%. The cumulative effect of 2 yr pay freeze, 2 yr 1% pay cap + pension contributions increase will be a 16.48% pay cut in public sector.

· Looking at Regional Pay so he can give ungrateful public sector workers in the most deprived regions of England and Scotland a further pay cut.

· Promised increases in Child Tax Credit abandoned.

· Creating further job insecurity by undermining employment rights on unfair dismissal, redundancy and TUPE.

· And if you still have a job you are more likely to die at work when health and safety rules are abandoned.

In essence the UK Government is planning to borrow £billions to keep workers on the dole rather than investing to get people into work and growing the economy. Even those in work will be less willing to spend when they see what’s coming.

On the eve of the probably the largest strike the UK has ever seen – the priorities of this Government are very clear for all to see.

Labour Leadership

2011-11-24T21:55:00.000Z

Ballot papers will start dropping through members letterboxes this week for the election of a Leader and Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party. This is an important election as it will be the first leadership team to be elected as party leader in Scotland, rather than simply leader of the MSP group. In addition, after last May's election defeat, the Scottish Labour Party leads to take a new direction to win back the support of the electorate.

There are three competent candidates for each post, but I will be supporting Johann Lamont for Leader and Ian Davidson for Deputy.

My reasons are primarily the same for both candidates. The Party needs more than simply a competent front person. We have done with New Labour, the 'what works' presentation above substance politics. We need leaders that imbue Labour values, not simply a smart soundbite.

It is not an accident that almost all the trade unions in Scotland back Johann and Ian. Trade unions don't operate in the political bubble. They represent workers who have made it very clear that they want political leaders who stand up for workers in their current struggles. Johann and Ian are the candidates with a proven track record of promoting Labour values.

And record is important because it is easy to make promises in an election. Endorsements like Maria Fyfe and senior union women for Ian Davidson shows that he has walked the talk for fair representation in the party. He has been on the marches, the picket lines and taken forward the cause of working people in Parliament. Johann has a similar record on a range of causes and has the backing of respected politicians like Hugh Henry.

That's not to say that we will agree on everything. I have had many a policy disagreement with both Johann and Ian. Pretty robustly on occasions too! But these have always been tactical differences - I have never doubted their underlying values.

They also understand the need for change. Not just as an easy slogan, but because they understand why we lost support and what we need to do to rebuild trust.

As a senior union official, SEC member and as a former Chair of the Scottish Labour Party I have worked with many politicians, through good times and bad. I can tell you that Johann and Ian are the real thing and that's why I will be voting for them.

Nordic inspiration

2011-11-23T19:51:00.000Z

Comparisons with Nordic countries are in vogue with the Cabinet Secretary for Education recently extolling the merits of the Swedish free schools. Looking to Scandinavia for public policy inspiration is very worthwhile and the work of Nordic Horizons and others is important in promoting a dialogue. These countries are of similar size and geography to Scotland and share at least some common attitudes and cultural links.

Last week I was giving a presentation to a visiting delegation of Norwegian trade unionists on the Scottish health and social care system. This was a privilege because we usually look to them for inspiration. For example, the Norwegian health service has a much better staffing ratio per head of population than Scotland. They also have a genuinely ‘local’ council structure, serving real communities rather than our historical compromises. Of course their greatest achievement is a more equal society that delivers better outcomes in almost every measure.

This visit was one of a number of similar trips by Norwegian unions to Scotland in recent years. They are concerned that market principles are invading their public services, largely based on the English model promoted in the New Labour years and taken to new lows by the ConDems. They come to Scotland to learn how another small country has taken a different path of public service reform based on cooperation not competition. I was able to give them an historical overview and update them on the work of the Christie Commission that again sets a very different course from other parts of the UK.

Interestingly, they were less than impressed by the Swedish free schools and pointed to recent studies that question how effective they have been. The number of low performing pupils has increased since the free school system was introduced. They regard this as a good example of how market principles are undermining the success of the Nordic approach in creating and maintaining a more equal society. It is equality that makes the difference and this is reflected in UK studies that show that school systems are less important than social class determining positive education outcomes.

I would therefore look to Finland instead of Sweden where they combine the highest levels of attainment in the OECD‟s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and have “high and consistent performance standards across the entire education system”. It is important to note though that Finnish success in world education rankings is not just about their school model. It is a country that values social cohesiveness. Finns pay relatively high taxes which provide the money for high quality services which all contribute to the well being of their children.

So while we should continue to take inspiration from Scandinavia, we should remember that some developments there are driven by the same neo-liberal policies that have caused so much damage in the rest of Europe. I wonder if Mike Russell would be as keen on free schools if he fully appreciated the link to the English market reforms? Well he might, but the rest of us should be more wary.

Politics of Pensions

2011-10-29T18:35:00.000+01:00

I was speaking at a fringe meeting on pensions at today's Scottish Labour Party conference. Thanks to CfS for organising it.

I have previously explained why we are balloting members on pensions. In essence most of our members across the UK are being asked to pay more, work longer and get a smaller pension. As today was a political event, I focused on the politics of pensions.

Let's start with the Hutton report on public service pensions. Now in fairness to Lord Hutton there are a number of positive points in his report. In particular he buried the myth of the 'gold plated' pension, promoted by Nick Clegg, and argued for bringing private sector pensions up, rather than bringing everyone down. Other recommendations on governance and the factual analysis that shows pension costs declining have been helpful. Other issues like the 50% increase in contributions were formulated by the UK Government, not John Hutton.

However, I still wonder why he took the job. He was after all in the Cabinet that reached a UK deal on public service pensions in 2007/8. He then said he thought that deal did not go far enough and it was better he did the review that the usual Tory place person. Sadly, this is a classic New Labour approach to politics. Little grasp of political values and a 'what works' approach to policy. Little grasp of the political context that the Tories would use pensions as part of their ideological attack on public services. The report was also laced with other New Labour mantras, including ending access to public service pension schemes for workers who are privatised. Plurality of public service provision is more important than decent pensions.

So what about the current Labour leadership. Well I might not have agreed with Ed Miliband's position on the civil service dispute in June, but I could at least understand it. Negotiate before striking is what we do all the time. However, that is no longer the position. No reasonable observer could fail to recognise that we have been attempting to negotiate for months with a government that is simply not interested in meaningful negotiations. Ed did make the right decision in joining the TUC march in London and he should now make the correct call here if the trade unions take action on 30 November. Labour needs to be seen on the side of workers who are only seeking to protect their hard earned pensions. I was very pleased to hear all the candidates for Leader and Deputy Leader at the hustings this afternoon support the pensions justice case and give their backing to the ballot.

And the SNP position? Well unlike the UK government they couldn't blame the previous administration, because they were in power when the pensions deals were done in 2008. John Swinney's signature is on the LGPS (Scotland) agreement and I don't believe he wanted to backtrack, he is in my view a man who sticks by his word. He also well understood that whatever the temptation to levy unecssary contribution increases on workers covered by the LGPS scheme, this would rightly be viewed as a Scottish pensions tax. To do the same for the other schemes would have taken a significant chunk out of his declining budget, so he decided to bow to Westminster. He could have used the very large, and unbudgeted, surplus in efficiency savings. However, I believe politics took over here and the Scottish Government took the political calculation that they could spend the money to greater political effect elsewhere and blame the increase on Westminster.

So public service pensions is first and foremost a dispute with governments over an essential term and condition of service. Our members pay significant and growing pension contributions for their retirement. They do the proper thing in providing for them and their families. Unlike many private sector bosses who expect the state to pick up the bill while they profit and pay themselves massive pensions.

But it also has a very clear political context. It is part of the ConDem coalition's ideological attack on public services, reflecting their political values. For the SNP it is an opportunity to say again that it would all be fine if we were independent. The Labour leadership also has to stand up and be counted as being on the side of workers in struggle. No New Labour style woolly words or equivocation on this one Ed. Millions of workers expect better.

Top Pay Scandal

2011-10-28T10:52:00.000+01:00

I was a guest on the BBC's 'Call Kaye' programme this morning discussing the 49% increase in directors pay. Rightly, there was a lot of anger at this outrageous abuse of power. I almost felt sorry for David Watt from IoD Scotland who usually gets wheeled out to defend the indefensible.

My opening point was that a time when our members are suffering a pay freeze and attacks on their pensions, they would welcome a pay rise in line with inflation - 5%, never mind 50%. These directors are same people who want to end unfair dismissal rights and cut workers pay and pensions in the public and private sector. They have no shame as they get together to award each other pay, bonuses and massive pensions.

I also had the opportunity to correct some myths.

There is no real link here with performance. CEO pay has quadrupled in the last ten years, while share prices have fallen.
No they won't be poached by overseas companies. Only one FTSE 100 CEO has been poached in this way in past 5 years, and that was by another UK company. 60% of appointments are internal and turnover is only 6% - half the national average.
They won't move overseas. We were told a few weeks ago that banks will move to the Cayman Islands. Well I would like to see their taxpayers finance the next bailout.

A number of callers referred to the culture of short termism and that is a contributory factor. But this is also a failure of moral leadership. Between 1949 and 1979 top pay actually fell as a proportion national income. After 1979 it has been going in the opposite direction. The post war generation of leaders has been replaced by greed and avarice. Individualism and wealth, the Thatcher values, have been promoted over any sense of fairness or decency. CEO's now earn 145 times average wages. If we continue as we are that will rise to 214 times average wages by 2020.

So what are the solutions. Capping wages, possibly as a multiplier of the lowest pay would be one solution. Progressive taxation is another. The High Pay Commission is looking at some structural solutions including:

Transparency: more publicly available information and meaningful disclosure.

Accountability: how pay at the top can be made more accountable through reforms of the Remuneration Committees and the inclusion of other stakeholders.

Fairness: The British public have a deep and ingrained sense of what is fair. When it comes to pay at the top, this is fundamentally about playing by the rules. Need reforms that could engage greater fairness in relation to pay.

It is that last point I would finish on. This isn't just an issue for the companies concerned and their shareholders. It is an issue that affects us all. We know that more equal societies to better on almost every measure. Top Directors pay is an important part of the drift towards a less equal society in the UK, and we are paying a big price for not tackling this issue.

Health & Safety Week

2011-10-24T16:17:00.000+01:00

This is European Health and Safety Week when we seek to raise awareness of workplace health and safety.

This year's events take place against the background of the UK Government slashing the budget of the Health and Safety Executive and planning to dilute existing legislation to remove the allegedly "unfair burden" on business. We have heard plenty of similar nonesense from Euro sceptic Tory MPs today. When they talk about the burden of EU regulation, they mean issues like health and safety. After the banking collapse you would have thought MPs would have learnt some lessons about the importance of regulation.

The minister concerned has been keen to meet with representatives of big business. However, he has repeatedly snubbed the families of those killed due to employer negligence. The campaign group FACK accuses the minister of downplaying the cost of health and safety failures while inflating the cost to business of compliance with safety laws.

They write: "Your answer to a parliamentary question from Ian Lavery MP in June put the cost of health and safety failures at £20 billion per year. This is the bottom end of a £20-£31.8 billion HSE estimate, based on 10-year-old prices, but does not include the cost of cancers and other long latency work-related conditions which would add another £20 billion at least. What you do not explain is that the negligent employers who fail to take health and safety seriously and comply with the law bear less than 25 per cent of the cost of their actions, exporting the 75 per cent of £40-£50bn cost per year on to the whole economy - a tax on good employers and all of us alike."

More than 1.2 million people currently at work have health problems caused by their jobs. The problem is not just bad employers using health and safety as an excuse but the UK government using safety myths as a reason for cutting back on regulation, enforcement and guidance.

The Wednesday of European Health and Safety Week has been designated "National Inspection Day" when all safety representatives are asked to inspect their workplace. This not only helps make our workplaces safer , but also raises awareness of safety at work. Given the direction of travel of the UK Government on safety, we will need to redouble our efforts to safeguard the workplace.

Local government reform

2011-10-21T19:27:00.000+01:00

I was speaking at our fringe meeting at the SNP conference today. The theme was public service reform. I set out the key recommendations of the Christie Commission and the Scottish Government's response, in the context of the major challenges facing Scotland's public services. I then focused on the implications for local government.

There is legitimate concern over the future of local government. Services are going away from local democratic control including police, fire and possibly social care. In addition we have services being transferred to a variety of trusts and other arms length organisations. Plus some privatisation initiatives. This has major implications for the remaining services and creates a confused pattern of service delivery. Unless action is taken we are heading for a 19th Century service delivery model that local government was established to sort out.

There is also a clamour for council mergers on the premise that economies of scale will be achieved. I questioned this premise. There is no evidence that larger councils are more efficient or more effective. They are also more remote from local communities. We should remember that Scotland has the smallest number of councils and councillors per head of population in Europe. Far from being over governed, our councils are already large by international standards.

So the position of local government is hardly secure. However, the reform agenda also has opportunities for local government. The key recommendation in the Christie Commission report is local integration of services through community planning. Councils have an opportunity to lead this process and become the leader of public services in each community. A less publicised Christie recommendation was the development of a 'single public authority' model. The island authorities are already seriously looking at this option and it could have wider application.

So local government needs to speak out strongly with politicians, staff and users making the case for strong democratically accountable councils. Projecting a new vision into the public service reform debate.

Pensions Ballot

2011-10-12T11:02:00.000+01:00

UNISON members in Scotland are beginning to receive ballot papers asking them to vote for industrial action to protect their pensions. The ballot closes on 3 November 2011.

As the lead negotiator for pensions in Scotland I have been closely involved in this issue and have met many members in meetings across Scotland. Pensions can be a complicated but the key issues are relatively straightforward. The issue is made more complex in Scotland because we have separate pension schemes that are regulated by Scottish Ministers. Primary pensions legislation is reserved to UK Ministers.

Firstly, UK ministers want to increase pension contributions by 3.2% of pay on average. That's nearly a 50% increase. Scottish Ministers are passing this increase on to NHS staff because their budget will be docked if they don't. They could have used the additional efficiency savings delivered by staff to pay for this, but decided not to. They are not increasing contributions for those staff covered by the local government scheme (LGPS) because their budget is not affected by the changes in England.

The most important point to understand is that not one penny of the money raised goes into pension schemes. It is simply a cash grab by the Treasury. The NHS schemes across the UK are £2bn in surplus each year and the Scottish LGPS funds are very healthy. UK Ministers keep saying that people are living longer so we need to pay more. Yes we are, although not as long in Scotland, which sadly is one of the reasons our funds are in better shape. But longevity is covered by agreements reached as recently as 1998 and 1999 in Scotland that allow for contributions to rise to cover real cost increases like this.

Secondly, we have recommendations from Lord Hutton that will mean staff working longer for less pension. Now some staff want to work longer and others have little choice because their retirement income in insufficient. £4,000 p.a. is the average local government pension. However, a blanket retirement age does not reflect the wide range of jobs covered by these pension schemes. A normal public service career was 40 years. Now that will eventually be going up to 50 years, and probably longer. Just think of the range of public service staff you engage with and reflect if 68 is reasonable for all of them.

Like much of Lord Hutton's report it is not the recommendations that are wrong but rather UK Ministers adding to them. He recommended a move from final salary to career average schemes. Now you can make a case for career average schemes, but UK ministers are using this as an opportunity to cut the value of pensions. Almost all the options they have tabled involve accrual rates that would result in smaller pensions on retirement.

It is the case that Scottish Ministers have not taken a position on the Hutton recommendations and the UK add ons. We have asked for assurances on these points, but have not received them as yet. However, we have seen a letter from the Treasury to Scottish Ministers on this point. That letter strongly implies that UK Ministers are planning to use their reserved powers to impose changes on Scotland.

Thirdly, UK Ministers have imposed cuts in all Scottish pension schemes by changing the indexing of pensions from the RPI to the CPI. This will result in an average 15% cut in retirement pensions. You pay into a scheme all your life only to see it cut when you come to claim it. If this was a private company you could sue for breach of contract.

So these are the three main reasons for the current dispute. For our members in the NHS the issues are immediate and clear - pay more, work longer, get less. For LGPS members the issues are longer term. But of course pensions are a long term investment and this ballot is about protecting those long term benefits.

Public service workers in Scotland are suffering from a pay freeze, attacks on terms and conditions, cuts in services and jobs. Our members understand that this attack on their pensions is the final straw. Enough is enough.

I have been a trade union negotiator for more than thirty years. You have to make judgements about when the people you are negotiating with are serious about reaching agreement. UK ministers are clearly in the business of taking money from our members and handing back an even poorer pension in return.

We will of course use every avenue to reach a negotiated agreement. But now is the time to support those negotiations with a big YES vote in this ballot.

Public service reform and the workforce

2011-10-07T21:20:00.000+01:00

I was speaking at the Holyrood conference today - Roadmap for Change: Making Christie a Reality. A very good turnout for one of the better conferences on this issue.

My comments focused on workforce aspects of reform. Given the staff intensive nature of public services you might think that the workforce would be a key feature of government strategies. Sadly this has been far from the case over the years, with the workforce being an afterthought in a related HR strategy.

The Christie Commission report and the Scottish Government response is different. They make the workforce central to reform. The workforce is one of the four 'pillars' of Scottish Government reform plans.

Of course we shouldn't get too starry eyed about this. There couldn't be a more difficult time to engage the workforce. A pay freeze, 21,000 job losses, undermining terms and conditions and of course the current attack on pensions. Public service workers didn't cause the crisis but they are paying the price.

Those staff who are left are being spread more thinly trying to deliver services. So it is important that there is some focus on their needs. Christie recommendations included:

Strengthening the public service ethos
Workforce development
Involvement in designing and improving their jobs
Improving the level of autonomy and empowerment

There are two contrasting approaches to workforce involvement in public service reform in Scotland today. A consultant led, top down, one size fits all approach - what I would describe as "one I prepared earlier". The other is a bottom up design of services involving staff and service users. The Systems Thinking approach championed by John Seddon is a good example of this. The former is exemplified by back office factory shared service solutions. Ironically the very approach championed by the sponsor of today's conference - Deloittes. Although interestingly it didn't appear in their presentation!

The bottom up approach can be implemented locally, but other issues need a national approach. These include:

A common competency framework
Interdisciplinary training
Partnership industrial relations
Job security
National frameworks on procurement, organisational change, pay and pensions.

Change is always difficult but involving the workforce and their trade unions at an early stage is essential to effective change management. There are good examples of this in Scotland, but as in other aspects of reform - others have a long way to travel.

Climate change

2011-10-04T16:19:00.003+01:00

I was speaking at the STUC Climate Change Conference in Edinburgh today. My theme was Climate change: from law to action.

For the benefit of the climate change deniers I started with a brief recap of the climate change science evidence. The Guardian does a great interactive guide. For Scotland it means our temperatures have risen in every season over the past 40 years, we are 20% wetter with a shorter snow season and fewer frosts. So Scotland gets a bit warmer - not many complaints likely over that! However, it also means an increase in extreme weather events like heat, drought and rainfall, plus a sea level rise of between 10-18cm by 2050. This all has serious consequences for public services, markets, business and health.

For these reasons Scotland has adopted the strongest climate change legislation in the world. Targets to cut emissions by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, together with annual targets of at least 3% per year. These targets are backed up by mitigation and adaptation strategies and a commitment to sustainable development. All public bodies have a duty to tackle climate change by assessing their impact and influence, taking action and measuring progress. Sadly the guidance is a bit weak with no statutory reporting and a very top down approach.

This is why we need to keep campaigning. Scotland is fortunate in having a powerful campaigning coalition on this issue in Stop Climate Chaos Scotland with a collective membership of 2 million. Targets are fine but they are beyond normal political cycles. So we need further steps on issues like green procurement, energy efficiency, transport and just transition strategies. The recent Spending Review prioritised roads over public transport and housing. So we need to keep Government on its toes. Targets are being met, but that is more due to the economic downturn than practical action to tackle climate change.

Next year's local government elections is a good opportunity to put some focus on local actions to tackle climate change. Too many councils put the Climate Challenge plaque on the wall and do little else. They should all build emission cuts into their Single Outcome Agreements and the work of their Community Planning Partnerships. They should have local targets and adaption strategies that they report on annually. Sustainable development education should be undertaken in all schools together with Food for Good policies in all catering facilities. Waste management and energy conservation should be part of these strategies together with support for public transport, cycling, pedestrian facilities and access to land.

All public bodies and employers should recognise that more than half of all emissions are work related. Workplaces produce ten times as much waste as we do in our homes. That's why engaging workers in climate change is essential. Heroic leadership is not enough. Unions like UNISON have Green Workplace strategies that can help raise awareness and take important practical steps. Workers engaged in these strategies are also more likely to take them into our communities and the home. It can also cut waste at a time when the public pound is being stretched beyond breaking point.

So strong legislation with ambitious targets is great. But let's not get complacent. We need practical actions to deliver these commitments and really tackle the most serious threat to the planet.

Spending Review choices

2011-09-20T10:23:00.000+01:00

John Swinney MSP will present his spending plans for the next three years to Parliament tomorrow. It is unlikely to make good reading. So here are a few things UNISON members should be watching out for.

The context of course is the UK ConDem coalition's ideological attack on public services, dressed up as a deficit reduction plan. This means a further real terms cut in the Scottish budget, just at a time when the economy needs public spending the most. However, that doesn't mean that John Swinney doesn't have choices, they may not be easy ones, but choices there are.

The first thing we will be looking for is the choices he will make on public service pension contribution increases. The UK government is docking around £240m (recurring revenue) from his budget over the next three years in anticipation that he will enforce a 50% increase in the pension contributions of staff in NHS Scotland, teachers and others. The UK government wants him to do the same in the Local Government Pension Scheme, although there are no Barnett consequentials if he refuses. If he does increase contributions in the LGPS, this will be a 'made in Scotland' pensions tax. No point blaming the big boy down south on this one.

Next is public service pay policy. This is the second year of a real term pay cut for public service workers in Scotland. If that was to be continued for a third year it will add up to a double digit cut in living standards. For all the talk of cuts it is important to remember that the wage freeze has made the biggest contribution to the savings pot. I suspect we will hear more about the 'social wage' and in particular the 'benefit' of the Council Tax freeze. This won't wash as this tax freeze benefits the wealthy home owner, not our low paid members. It also costs jobs and services.

Then we have the impact of the budget on jobs and services. Even with some protection for the NHS budget, inflation and increasing demand will still result in health cuts. The Non-Departmental Public Bodies faced far bigger cuts than the average last year and they will be concerned again. However, it will be the local government budget that will merit most scrutiny. The Council Tax freeze means they have no local flexibility and they are also facing increasing cost pressures. John Swinney may wish to incentivise reforms with financial sticks and carrots, and this may make it difficult to compare budgets. Watch out for some smoke and mirrors under this heading.

We should of course remember that none of this pain is necessary. It is low paid workers and communities who are again paying the price of corporate greed. It beggars belief that the cheerleaders for corporate greed, the CBI, are calling for more services to be handed over to them in this morning's Scotsman. Have they not done enough damage?

There are few easy choices for John Swinney tomorrow. But choices there are.

Local Government in Scotland

2011-09-14T12:41:00.000+01:00

I gave evidence last week to the Scottish Parliament Local Government Committee on what I believe are likely to be the key issues facing the service in the coming year. In my view the agenda is dominated by the financial position and I categorised the impact into three strands:

Services
The Scottish Government allocation to local government this year was cut by 2.6%. But that is only the start of the story. Increasing demand, inflation and the recession means that councils have had to cut even further. We have identified £535m of cuts with 12,600 job losses across Scottish local government. These aren't projections, they are real cuts.

The economic impact of that is substantial with, according to the Treasury model, at least another 13,000 jobs lost in the private sector as a consequence. 70p in every pound spent on local government wages is spent locally. And for every job loss the state only 'saves' 8p in the pound.

Most service cuts so far are being achieved by salami slicing from services. Fewer staff are struggling to deliver the same services and that is resulting in delays and a diminution in service quality. The recent Audit Scotland report highlighted some of the impact this has on staff and service delivery.

Reform
There are positive reform initiatives and many of these approaches are identified in the Christie Commission report. However, the financial position is such that some councils are scrambling around looking for any proposal that might make savings, however ill thought through. The Edinburgh privatisation programme and the Clyde Valley shared support services are two topical examples.

Care procurement is another. We are seeing a race to the bottom in wages, conditions and quality of service. The Scottish Government's social care procurement guidance is very poor on workforce issues and even ignores their own statutory guidance. Integration is all very well but it is meaningless if you have a demoralised workforce.

We should not lose sight of the impact of UK Government reforms. In particular housing benefit changes that will undermine housing finance and cause administrative chaos.

All of this leads to a real concern over the future of local government in Scotland. The centralisation of police and fire simply adds to the growing quango state at the expense of local democracy.

Workforce
The biggest contribution towards the financial cuts has come from the workforce. In local government there is a pay freeze without the modest underpinning for the low paid that happened elsewhere. Progress on the living wage has also been patchy.

Now those same members face an unprecedented attack on their pensions with a 50% increase in contributions. In return they will get worse benefits and be expected to work longer. And no, I am sorry, but the Council Tax freeze doesn't make up for that.

All of this adds up to a toxic mix with a demoralised workforce struggling to deliver essential services. There is a better way.

Legislative programme

2011-09-07T22:20:00.001+01:00

Some grand rhetoric in Parliament today with the unveiling of the Scottish Government's legislative programme. Lot of words, if not huge detail, in the 63 page document. Here are some highlights.

Workforce Issues

Unusually for a legislative programme there is quite a lot about the public service workforce. It confirms the policy of no-compulsory redundancies until March 2012, although that doesn't cover local government. There is an attempted 'social wage' trade off between pay restraint and benefits including the frozen council tax, living wage, prescription charges and concessionary travel. This frankly doesn't wash with most public service workers particularly as many don't get the underpinning £250 for the low paid or the Living Wage.

The Council Tax freeze is particularly contentious. They claim “Analysis shows that, as a percentage of their income, households in the lower end of the income distribution benefit the most, on average, from the freeze in council tax.” This is a highly skewed statistic. The saving at Band A is £147pa compared with £441pa at Band H, therefore the richest households benefit more from this tax cut. Not to mention the jobs and services lost to pay for the freeze.

The FM was a bit vague when questioned about pay policy during the election and we expect this to be clarified as part of the Spending Review later this month. “We will continue to set public sector pay in a way that is fair and helps sustain public sector jobs and protect public services in the face of deep budget cuts from Westminster.” Is just so much rhetoric if they continue a pay freeze.

Public services

A Cabinet sub-committee on public service reform “has been convened to shape and take

forward our response to the Christie Commission in a coordinated manner. The Spending Review, to be published later this month, will express our continued focus on driving reform and value for money throughout public services.”

Sections on integrated working, local partnerships, outcomes and preventative spending, essentially appear to implement the key Christie recommendations. There is also support for the Christie proposals on workforce development and in particular the concept of workforce engagement.

Again reflecting Christie on structural reform; “Where structural reform is required in order to achieve the required outcomes and value for money it should proceed, but leadership and culture matter more than structure.”

There is reference in the list of Bills to a Freedom of Information Amendment Act. There is no explanation in the text other than it is intended to “add strength and clarity to the Act”. As the government has previously ducked extending the Act, we should be wary about what is meant by 'clarity'.

Economy

A strange mix of economic proposals. The Tory Enterprise Zones are to be imported to Scotland, despite previous experience that these simply move jobs around. Mind you I suppose that is at least consistent with the Corporation Tax strategy! Similar pandering to the business lobby over 'better regulation' and the Small Business Bonus Scheme. This is apparently "very successful", without a scrap of evidence that it has created a single job.

Water

The hydro nation concept is to be delivered through a water bill. This looks promising as is the idea of a strategic body rather than simply handing new roles over to Scottish Water. Again more detail needed, but looks as if it is moving in the right direction.

Housing

Housing investment took a big hit in this year's budget and so we should be wary about the plan to abolish the Housing Support Grant. It looks as if it is another way of spreading limited cash even more thinly. However, the government should get credit for the modest council house building programme. Even modest is an improvement.

Health & Care

On the day that ConDem MP's voted to dismantle the NHS in England, it is welcome to see the Scottish Government “hold firm to the values of the NHS, which are so important to the people of Scotland. We will foster a mutual NHS, working competently and collaboratively to deliver healthcare which is free at the point of need. We shall not go down the route being pursued in England.” Gold star for that commitment.

Same applies to partnership working as “NHS Scotland staff will continue to be fully involved in shaping the future NHS, benefiting from partnership arrangements which are the envy of many, within and outwith Scotland.”

On care integration it appears that the Government will focus initially on older people, "This will require, amongst other things, delivering the integration of health and social care and improving joint working with other agencies and the voluntary sector. We are determined to ensure that the older person is the central focus of delivery the length and breadth of Scotland.” Again a lot of detailed work is required and I understand we will hear more on this later this month.

The Social Care (Self-directed Support) Bill will need some scrutiny. This is fine for appropriate groups, but it mustn't become the new 'one size fits all' policy. It is already being used to cut social care in a number of areas.

The Alcohol Bill will be reintroduced “bringing minimum pricing as a condition of licences granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 with the actual minimum price being specified in subordinate legislation." We certainly have to do something to reduce alcohol consumption in Scotland and reduce the impact that alcohol misuse and overconsumption has on public health, crime, public services, productivity, and the economy as a whole. There will still be scepticism that this is the right approach, but as the UK government is unwilling to act on excise duty, it may be worth a try.

Justice

More rubbish on the claimed “additional 1,000 police officers on the beat in Scotland.” This is nonsense as many of these officers are far from “on the beat” - they are substituting for police staffs. It is hard to take the Government seriously on 'outcomes' when they persist with this policy.

Then we have a Bill to create a single Scottish Police Service and a single Fire & Rescue Service. “Our priority will be to ensure policing remains strongly rooted in and responsive to our communities, and that front line services are protected despite the financial challenges.” The paper claims this is consistent with Christie recommendations although it is hard to see how. These services are typical command and control cultures that don't do devolved management well.

The only bright point in the dismal Justice section is support for community alternatives to short term prison sentences for minor offences and the Community Payback Order (CPO). We really must do something to cut the appalling waste of the ever rising prison population. We will have to see if the Spending Review includes the promised "provision of realistic levels of funding.”

Environment

We should welcome the emphasis on Climate Change legislation and assessment of the carbon impact of proposed expenditure. Scotland may already be "more than halfway to meeting our 2020 target of a 42% reduction in emissions.” How much this is due to the recession is questionable and there is limited action on public duties. However, we should welcome the continuation of the Climate Challenge Fund "with an enhanced level of funding of £10.3 million in 2011-12."

Education & Children’s Services

If we are serious about preventative spending we need to invest in early years. There are a number of initiatives that expand provision and develop the early years workforce. A welcome move away from the obsession with nursery teachers. There will be new legislation on the rights of children and young people and consultation on a draft Children’s Services Bill for introduction later in this Parliamentary session. There will be an Early Years Change Fund “to deliver effective early intervention in a child’s life, including the development of a new generation of children and family centres across Scotland and support for families in crisis.” That looks promising and appears to build on the work done by Susan Deacon.

There will be a Pre Legislative Paper on Post-16 Education in September 2011. We should welcome the commitment to free higher education and a guarantee that all 16-19 year olds will get a place in post-16 learning. Maintaining the Educational Maintenance Allowance and “implement our new Careers Strategy with more and better support for those who need it most.” I would be sceptical about aspects of this careers strategy as so far as it is too reliant on web based services. But let's wait and see.

Conclusion

In the current budgetary environment it was always going to be a difficult programme to put together. It is a bit of the curates egg, good in parts, but plenty to scrutinise when we see the detail.

Bankers at it again

2011-08-31T14:15:00.000+01:00

The bankers and their big business allies at the CBI are at it again - lobbying against regulatory reform of the banking system. The proposals, due to be published on 12 September, are aimed at ensuring taxpayers are not liable for any future losses or bank collapses, including ring-fencing banks' retail operations.

CBI Director General John Cridland said taking action now could starve businesses of the capital they needed and damage the economic recovery. However, Business Secretary Vince Cable has said the reforms will go ahead. He described the CBI's line as "disingenuous in the extreme. Banks are in a way trying to create a panic around something which they know has got to happen".

The 'spivs and gamblers' as Vince cable once described them are at it again. The only amazing thing is that these reforms have not already been introduced. The banking crisis was in 2007 and if you read the Treasury's response, it sounds like the CBI might get a better hearing there. 2015 or later for legislation?

The US at least has the Dodd-Frank Act. Even that was watered down by the usual suspects bemoaning the increase in regulatory powers, claiming it should all be left to the market. Even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman turned away from “free banking” to support, albeit limited, financial regulation and legislative reform in the wake of banking crises in their lifetimes. Smith’s views were influenced by the 1772 crisis and the failure of the Ayr Bank in Scotland. Friedman’s views by the U.S. banking crisis of 1930–1933.

Others predicted the resistance to change. Joseph Stiglitz in his 2009 book 'Freefall' used the plumbing analogy (p295):

"We called in the same plumbers who installed the plumbing - having created the mess, presumably only they knew how to straighten it out. Never mind if they overcharged us for the installation, never mind that they overcharged us for the repair. We should be grateful that the plumbing is working again, quietly pay the bills, and pray that they do a better job this time than last."

In the afterword to the paperback edition he called the Dodd-Frank Act a "Swiss cheese bill - seemingly strong, but with large holes." The man certainly knows how to use the English language! He also correctly predicted the "rewriting of history" that the usual suspects have been busy at in both the UK and USA.

I will leave the final word to David Hillman, of the Robin Hood Tax campaign:

"An out of control banking sector is no basis for economic recovery. Banks should be made to pay for the damage they caused and not be allowed to repeat the mistakes of the past. We must not be deterred by bank lobbyists whose idea of 'economic recovery' means increasing bank profits. We can protect jobs and help those hit hardest by the financial crisis if we ensure banks pay their fair share back to society."

Scottish Studies

2011-08-23T14:18:00.000+01:00

The announcement by Alasdair Allan, Minister for Learning and Skills that a new topic, Scottish Studies, is to be taught in schools has caused a lot of debate. Maybe because it is the media silly season, after all Mike Russell made a similar statement in June without quite the same level of interest.

Alasdair said research showed there was widespread support for the plan, which he said would correct an “abnormal” situation where Scottish history and literature was not routinely taught. “You would anticipate that there would be a wide variety of material about Scotland made available in Scottish schools, but it has to be said that, although things have been getting much better, many people’s experience is of learning not much about Scotland.”

I have to say that I fully agree with that. Interestingly, similar points have been raised in England about how little of their history is taught in schools. Whilst we should of course learn about international history, that doesn't mean our own should be marginalised. I was fortunate to have an wonderful history teacher who gave me a lifelong passion for the subject. Others have not been so fortunate.

For those who view this as a nationalist plot, if it is, it could backfire. In my experience many Scots have a very romantic view of Scottish history, full of heroic myths that sadly are rarely true. The Wars of Independence, Jacobite risings and others are widely seen as Scotland v England matches, when the reality was much more complex. Teaching history properly can only improve our understanding of the past and move away from simply viewing Scotland as, that country that isn't England.

There is also a lesson for some politicians. Knee jerk reactions that it is all a nationalist plot is just not clever politics. It just plays negatively and turns the voter off politics. The research showed widespread support for the idea and a simple vox pox with friends would confirm this. Of course there is a political motivation, but that doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. My advice - take a deep breath next time you are invited to do a media reaction interview.

Corporation Tax

2011-08-17T10:55:00.000+01:00

The long awaited Scottish Government paper on devolving Corporation Tax has been published. It has been some time coming given the FM raised the issue in May and this is a long standing SNP position.

UNISON Scotland is not only a strong advocate of devolution, but we would generally be regarded as in the 'devolution max' camp. This is reflected in our evidence to the Calman Commission and elsewhere. However, we have opposed the devolution of Corporation Tax and I can see little new in this new paper to justify this proposal.

So what are the problems?

The bottom line is that there is little evidence that cutting taxes on business creates new jobs. If there is a link, it is marginal and there are more cost effective ways of using the same money to create more jobs. Most of the savings are likely to go into big company profits and shareholders pockets.
Like the UK Government's enterprise zones, at best this might displace jobs from one part of the UK to another. Turning Scotland into some type of tax haven is not the basis for a strong economy with real jobs. At worst it will simply lead to 'brass plating' were companies notionally move their headquarters to Scotland, but no real jobs are created.
Devolution of taxation is not a free lunch because there will be a corresponding cut in the block grant. Northern Ireland estimates have just increased to £400m and it would be much more for Scotland. The Treasury estimate is £2.6bn although I agree with the Scottish Government that this is an over estimate, but still around £800m. Even if the Scottish Government is right that the lower tax rate will lead to a higher yield, there will be several years during which public services will have to be cut to fund the gap. Obviously this is the worst time to take such a risk. In any case the evidence for higher yields (Laffer Curve) is again slim.
Lower tax rates in one part of the UK could come up against state aid rules and what is known as the Azores judgement. In essence Scotland could face an additional cut in public spending. The cost to the block grant could be as much as £1 to 1.5bn. That's a lot of schools and hospitals.

There are many other arguments against this policy articulated by a range of groups across the spectrum. While I would always treat the views of PwC and the CBI with some scepticism, the same does does not apply to tax experts like Richard Murphy. In his commentary he said:

"The SNP’s policy on this issue comes from the economics of the madhouse. The trouble is they plan to release the mayhem, that’s intended to create on the UK economy. It’s an act of gross irresponsibility on their part. But worst of all it’s a betrayal of the ordinary people of Scotland to try to turn that country into a tax haven right now, at cost to those who need strong government and not business run amok with greed."

The only winners from this policy will be big business. The losers will be the rest of us through cuts in jobs and public services.

50p tax rate

2011-08-15T17:21:00.000+01:00

So the Chancellor believes that we should consider scrapping the 50p higher rate of Income Tax. This is payable on income above £150k per annum and covers around 0.5% of UK taxpayers.

We have had a flurry of the usual suspects, in an obviously concerted move this morning, to wheel out the arguments. Even a Tory MP from England on BBC Scotland. Credit to Stewart Hosie MP for pouring scorn on his arguments. The tax rate is not competitive, tax efficiency, avoidance and evasion, and the most laughable, they will all flee the country. Even a large degree of scepticism it would appear from the other side of No.11, with Danny Alexander and other Lib-Dems sounding less than enthusiastic.

Of course the Cabinet millionaires will emphasise the tax efficiency argument rather than the role tax has in redistribution. The High Pay Commission has predicted a massive increase in top-end incomes over the next 20 years. Those earning £150,000 or more a year currently represent just 0.5 per cent of the population, controlling 5 per cent of national income. But trends suggest that figure will rise to 14 per cent of the national income - one in every six pounds earned - by 2030.

Even Adam Smith in his book A Theory of the Moral Sentiments said:

"The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of a poor and mean condition, though both necessary to establish and maintain the distinctions of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments."

Following the state of the economy and riots on the streets of England, the Chancellor might want to re-read his right wing icon on this issue. We now know, thanks to research by Wilkinson, Pickett, Dorling and others, that the fabric of society is strengthened when the 'distinctions of rank' are replaced by greater equality, social cohesion and trust.

Dorling's book Injustice - why social inequality persists was part of my summer reading. I doubt if it was on the Chancellor's list. As Dorling points out, the current day Adam Smith Institute was founded with donations from rich individuals who thought we were becoming too keen on ideals of equality. In Britain inequality in wealth fell from the late 1920's through to 1981 when the richest 10% held an all time low for their group of 'only' half the nations wealth. This came about because of progressive taxation, inheritance tax and higher wages fought for by unions. Things didn't change until Freidmanite policies were introduced by British and US governments in 1980. Two-thirds of the wealth increases in the US in the 80's and 90's were in assets held by the richest 1% of the population. They owned 40% of the wealth while the poorest 40% owned 1% of the nations wealth.

Adam Smith referred to this as a moral issue, another subject the PM has had much to say on in recent days. Dorling highlights that the psychological impact of inequality drives one family in three into mental health problems. Anxiety and depression is the most common mental disorder in Britain today, with almost 9% diagnosed. A fifth of children have a mental health problem in any given year. Instead of addressing the causes we indulged in mass medication and drug company profits soared.

So if the Chancellor is concerned about tax efficiency, look a little harder at tax evasion and avoidance. For the moral and economic justification, tackle inequality. Progressive tax is a key element of that strategy.

Waste to energy

2011-08-10T16:11:00.000+01:00

While we await the Scottish Government's substantive response to the Hyrdro Nation consultation, they might want to take a look at what is happening in the Netherlands. Dutch public water authorities are upgrading existing sewage works into energy generating 'factories'. The aim is eventually to make sewage plants 'NEWater' factories, producing nutrients, energy and water. For example, global resources of phosphorus are shrinking and the price increasing.

The Dutch plan is made possible by a very different approach to wastewater investment than the short termism of UK water regulation. They take a long term view of investment tied into their legislative commitments to reduce energy use by 2% per year until 2030. They take a 30 year view of investment rather than our five year cycles. They also have much greater collaboration between the water and waste sector and have government investment in R&D.

Unlike the privatised industry in England, Scotland could follow the Dutch model. Scrap the costly regulation system that seeks to ape the privatised industry down south and go for a new long term model that develops new technologies like NEWater. A 30 year plan means you can look strategically at the asset base and adopt radical solutions. There is increasing collaboration between local authorities in Scotland over waste management, so a collaborative link with Scottish Water is much easier. The Hydro Nation paper already identified the opportunities for better R&D and this would give an opportunity to apply these technologies.

It would also make a real contribution to energy efficiency as Scottish Water is the biggest user of energy in Scotland. Making the public sector duty to reduce carbon emissions a reality.

Electricity Market Reform

2011-07-13T23:18:00.000+01:00

The UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has issued its long awaited White Paper on Electricity Market Reform (EMR).

The White Paper has four main parts:

Feed-in Tariff with Contract for Difference - this is the renewable support mechanism to replace the Renewable Obligation (RO).
Capacity Mechanism - this is designed to protect security of supply. Seeks to incentivise generators to be available, but not to necessarily generate. The policy is developing and the White Paper includes further consultation on the mechanism.
Carbon Floor Price - the policy on this aspect has been developed separately by the Treasury and announced in the Budget.
Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) - this introduces a limit to the level of emissions, seeking to discourage carbon intensive generation.

Billed as radical it falls somewhat short of that description. In essence it tinkers with the discredited market mechanisms and does nothing to address rising prices and fuel poverty. The Government estimates that the reforms are likely to add £160 to the average annual energy bill by 2030.Norrie Kerr, Director of Energy Action Scotland sums up the fuel poverty issue:

“UK Government plans announced today on energy market reforms will undoubtedly have the effect in the short to medium term of increasing domestic fuel bills, possibly by around £160. This is an easy move by the government as it shifts the onus for the cost of reforms onto the shoulders of the energy companies. Moreover, it is a regressive step as payments to cover the costs will take the form of blanket levies on customers’ bills and will not be based on either ability to pay or level of usage. A fairer way to pay for reforms would be through general taxation.”

And it is not the end of the price rise story. The UK Climate Change Committee estimates that bills in 2020 may rise about 25%. The regulator Ofgem has a wide range of figures, largely dependent on the price of gas, stretching from 14% to 52%.

It is certainly the case that the transition to lower carbon generation will be costly under the current market structures. Renewables may be desirable - but they cost more and still require a balanced mix of generation sources. We can disregard the Scottish Government's fantasy energy policy here.

But this is not supportable unless we address fuel poverty. Nearly 25% of the population are now struggling to pay energy bills and that is simply unsustainable. There is little in the White Paper regarding energy efficiency. The cheapest unit of energy is the one not produced in the first place by virtue of being energy efficient.

The so called market mechanisms are simply expensive games playing by the power companies and National Grid. We should reform this system and develop a credible plan for fuel poverty. Now that would be truly radical.

General Well Being

2011-07-06T10:12:00.000+01:00

There is a growing interest in looking at alternatives to Gross Domestic Product as the sole measurement of a country's performance. The term "gross national happiness" was coined in 1972 in the small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan by the former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. At first offered as a casual, offhand remark, the concept was taken seriously, as the Centre for Bhutan Studies with some assistance from Canada, developed a sophisticated survey instrument to measure the population's general level of well-being.

Even the Prime Minister supports the concept. In 2006, just five months into his time as Conservative Party leader, he described the task of gauging people's wellbeing as one of the "central political issues of our time". In government, the Office of National Statistics has been asked to produce measures to implement his "long-stated ambition of gauging general wellbeing." There is apparently some 'nervousness' in Downing Street on this issue. Not surprisingly as reflected in the Daily Record comment; "It sounds crazy - especially coming from a Tory Government whose economic policies spell misery for millions of people." Indeed! But the ONS started to collect the data last April.

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced that he intended to include happiness and wellbeing in France's measurement of economic progress. He was accepting recommendations made by two Nobel economists, Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, who called on world leaders to move away from a purely economic concept of gross domestic product, which measures economic production, to wellbeing and sustainability.

Canada already does some polling on wellbeing and John Helliwell from their statistics office has been to the UK to advise when he commented; "Canadian statisticians and researchers also poll subjective wellbeing across the country, but the data have thus far not attracted much policy attention. What is or could be dramatically different in the UK is for the government not just to undertake more widespread and thorough collection of subjective wellbeing data, but also to give them a central place in the choice and evaluation of public policies. That would be a global first."

Stiglitz is of course an economic advisor to the Scottish Government. I also understand that the Scottish Parliament, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee may be asked to look at this issue. Patrick Harvie MSP is on record as a keen supporter of this approach.

Still not convinced? Well none other than the OECD is championing the cause and has a major piece of work underway called the Better Life Initiative. The OECD is probably better known for its rather dry treatment of economic data so their eleven dimensions; housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance is very interesting. Britain comes out fairly middling on the current assessment with 68% of Britons satisfied with their life against an OECD average of 59%. However, since the 1970's, evidence suggests that we are no happier despite increasing material wealth and improving health.

The summer edition of The Geographer, newsletter of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society has a number of articles on this issue and good overview from their Chief Executive,Mike Robinson. He highlights the Spirit Level analysis and the work of Eric Weiner in his book Geography of Bliss. Weiner compared the happiest and most miserable countries and concluded that "Money matters, but less than we think and not in the way that we think. Family is important. So are friends. Envy is toxic. So is excessive thinking. Beaches are optional. Trust is not. Neither is gratitude."

If you want to take some practical actions then support Action for Happiness. This is a movement of people committed to building a happier society. They want to see a fundamentally different way of life where people care less about what they can get for themselves and more about the happiness of others. They emphasise this has positive outcomes for everyone. It's not just a 'good' thing to do.

The final word from my fellow Liverpudlian John Lennon, quoted by Mike Robinson in his article:
"When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down 'happy'. They told me I didn't understand the assignment, and I told them they didn't understand life."

Middle income levels

2011-07-01T15:41:00.000+01:00

An article by Chris Giles in the Financial times this week 'Spectre of stagnating incomes stalks globe' deserves a wider audience.

His key point is that most citizens across the globe are suffering from, at best, stagnating incomes;

"Fork-lift truck drivers in Britain could expect to earn £19,068 in 2010, about 5 per cent lower than in 1978, after adjusting for inflation. Median male real US earnings have not risen since 1975. Average real Japanese household incomes after taxation fell in the decade to mid-2000s. And those in Germany have been falling in the past 10 years."

This was to a degree masked by the property boom that allowed the middle classes to borrow. However, most countries have shown an increase in per capita income. So where has the money gone? Answer, to the very rich. It started in the USA and has now spread to Europe even allowing for progressive taxation and benefits;

"The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found increasing income inequality between the mid 1980s and late 2000s in 17 out of 22 advanced economies for which it had sufficient data."

Exacerbating this trend has been a decline in demand for mid-range jobs.

"Across advanced economies, the labour market is becoming polarised into “lovely jobs and lousy jobs”, says Alan Manning, a professor at the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. Between 1993 and 2006, the proportion of jobs with middling pay fell, while high- and low-paid employment rose."

The revolution in communication technology has allowed graduates with these skills to expand sales and the financial sector to gamble with other peoples money. At the bottom of the income scale technology is largely irrelevant to jobs like cleaning and caring. Routine but middle skilled jobs are being squeezed.

Giles concludes:

"It is no fun to be a fork-lift truck driver in a world of automated distribution warehouses. That shows in middling jobs and wages. And since the middle decides elections, it will also weigh on the minds of politicians."

Very useful article that flags up an issue that has been given insufficient attention. To this I would add that organisations in the public and private sector are reorganising many traditional middle skill jobs out of existence. So it is not only wages, but real jobs that are on the line. This has implications not only for the workplace, but for wider society as well.

Christie Commission

2011-06-29T16:23:00.001+01:00

The report of the Commission on Future Delivery of Public Services, chaired by Campbell Christie, was published today. I will declare an interest on the grounds that I was an expert advisor to the Commission. That doesn't mean I agree with every proposition in the report, but I do believe that it offers a credible road map to reform. You can read my UNISON Scotland briefing on the report for a summary and our initial response.

This report isn't a quick fix. Anyone expecting short term proposal for cuts or maps setting out boundary reorganisations, will be disappointed. It sets out principles of reform over the medium to long term. It is also firmly based on the Scottish public service model. No marketisation or Big Society here. As Campbell Christie said at the launch, this report is firmly based on collective responsibility and social justice. The report states that "Public services are central to the fair and just society to which we aspire."

Scotland's biggest problem is that we don't have a fair and just society. That's why the report emphasises the importance of tackling inequality, both income and discrimination inequality. Not just because of the cost, although that is important because some 40% of public spending addresses the failure to prevent negative outcomes for the bottom 20% of society. But also because we know from international evidence (Spirit Level et al) that more equal societies do better on all counts. So it is vital for all of us.

The report sets out the huge financial challenges caused by the ConDem cuts, but also the demand pressures caused by the recession and demographic change. No reform of public services can possibly bridge the £60bn+ gap and the report recognises that public service reform is only part of the solution. There is a better way to tackle the deficit and we should look there for those solutions.

There is a lot in the report on engagement with people and communities in the delivery of services. Probably too much, as you could be forgiven for thinking this was a report on community development - not public services. None the less, involving people and communities in the design and delivery of public services is an important principle and one that UNISON has long argued for. In doing this we need to recognise the limitations of this approach to certain services and the willingness and capacity of people and communities to participate. The report is very clear that this approach is not a replacement for mainstream services, in contrast to the Big Society in England.

The biggest idea in the report is service integration. I was personally struck by the number of staff who flagged this up at Commission events, and while we saw some good examples, they were the exception rather than the rule. Making it happen is trickier and the report goes for changes in the statutory and policy requirements, together with carrot and stick incentives. The most radical option, Single Public Authorities, is flagged up as a possible direction of travel that should be piloted.

Bottom up solutions also apply to workforce engagement and the report is helpful in pointing to a different approach from the top down solutions currently being promoted. Whilst I am always wary of promoting any management theory as a panacea, I do believe that we can learn a lot from the very practical approaches in systems thinking. The Commission has reflected that view in the report.

It is self evident that public services should be effective and efficient. However, this is often viewed as an opportunity for those who argue for the privatisation of public services. There are no such proposals in the report. UNISON's recent report on outsourcing in England shows that more than half of councils have or are considering bringing contracts back in house. Hardly surprising after the BT fiasco in Liverpool and the Southern Cross debacle. One third of the Scottish budget already goes to the private and voluntary sector and the report recommends competitive neutrality, but as defined in the OFT evidence, only when competition takes place. That is actually already a legal requirement before any outsourcers get excited. They will also have to open their organisations to transparency if they want to bid for public contracts.

The report does not comment specifically on the current consultations for police and fire services that promote national organisations. However, the criteria for reform makes it very clear that the Commission favours locally integrated solutions.

No doubt there will be those who describe the report as weak on hard solutions. It is true that it deliberately avoids some contentious political issues like the Council Tax freeze, universal services etc. These are political decisions and politicians are rightly accountable to the electorate for them.

However, I would argue that, for those who read carefully, this report is more radical than it first appears. Even if we didn't face huge financial pressures there is a compelling case for tackling some of Scotland's deep rooted problems. This is the first time anyone has looked across Scotland's public services, instead of a particular silo, and recommended a different way of working. Initially it is mostly about rewiring the system, that could lead to longer term structural change. But one based on local democracy, not centralisation.

Fred Goodwin pension

2011-06-29T13:51:00.000+01:00

We were supporting the STUC 'Better Way' photocall in Glasgow this lunchtime. Really good turnout of local UNISON members expressing their anger at the attacks on their modest pension provision.

The aim was to highlight the real pension scandal by comparing Fred Goodwin's pension of £13,500 per week with a typical public sector pension of £80 per week. Fred the Shred may be iconic of the greed that got us into this mess, but his fat cat pension is not untypical of lots of top bosses. They have been awarding themselves big pensions while cutting pension benefits for their workers. Then they have the nerve to attack pensions in the public sector as well.

We didn't vote to die at work

2011-06-26T22:21:00.000+01:00

The UK government has announced another review of health and safety law by Professor Lofstedt. This follows on from the Young report and government enforcement cuts of 35% to the HSE and at least 28% to Council EHOs, alongside a 33% cut in proactive inspections.

The government line is that modern work doesn't harm many people and that health and safety is a burden on business, costs employers too much and is stopping job creation. The sad reality is that 1,500 workers are killed every year and up to 50,000 die due to work-related illnesses. We have more work related ill-health now than ever with mental health a growing problem. It is telling that workplace counselling is now the leading workplace 'benefit', eclipsing health insurance for the first time this year.
Is health and safety really over enforced and over bureaucratic? A few well publicised, but often wrong, examples don't tell the full story. There is actually less regulation now than 40 years ago, less paper work, less spot inspection of workplaces (only once in 38 years now), fewer prosecutions: down 50% over 10 years and in 98% of major injuries there is no enforcement action taken against the employer at all.

Workplaces like offices, shops, schools are not ‘nonhazardous’. Of course you are less likely to be killed or physically injured, but these workers still face a range of risks. Musculo-skeletal risks from working with computers and manual handling, violence from customers and pupils, and a whole host of stress-related illnesses caused by bullying and harassment, by long hours and excessive workloads. Risk assessment is proportionate and takes account of the different hazards in these workplaces and doesn’t get or require the same response as higher risk workplaces. That doesn't mean they should get no protection.

Far from costing too much, good health and safety saves employers and the state money. Poor health and safety costs at least £30 billion every year, paid for by the taxpayer. Employers who cause the damage pay less than 25%.

The truth is that workers are made ill and killed every day due to employers failing to manage health and safety and all the evidence shows what works is clear laws, strictly enforced to protect workers from ignorant, non-compliant negligent employers. What also works is trade union organisation and safety representatives which reduce injuries by 50%.

Health and safety is vital so please lobby your MP and join the 'We didn't vote to die at work' Facebook page. You can keep up to date with the campaign there and through Hazards magazine.

Pension contributions

2011-06-22T17:29:00.000+01:00

It has been a busy day on pensions today with the Cabinet Secretary making an emergency statement in the Scottish Parliament on public service pension contributions.

Started with several discussions with MSPs and media, mostly confused about the reserved and devolved aspects. My MSP briefing was aimed at clarifying the issues prior to the Cabinet Secretary's statement. In essence primary pension legislation is a reserved matter for Westminster. This includes the state pension scheme and provisions that cover all pension schemes like taxation. However, public service pension regulations are devolved. This includes the important aspects of scheme design, including pension contributions.

In practice, as he said today, he has no control over the civil service scheme, needs treasury approval for changes to NHS and teachers, and generally follows the UK line on police and fire. The exception is local government over which the Scottish Parliament has direct control. In particular, this appears to be a surprise to the English based media. It shouldn't be as our local government scheme is significantly different from the scheme south of the border.

If pensions aren't complicated enough we then move on to the Barnett formula. In December the Cabinet Secretary wrote to us saying the Scottish share of the £2.8bn cash grab from the Treasury was scored against the Barnett formula. So if he didn't increase contributions then that would cost Scotland £375m. This was made up of £140m for local government, around £140m for the NHS, £60m for teachers and the balance from the smaller schemes. We challenged that assessment as it didn't tie in with my reading of the Treasury Barnett paper issued with the CSR. In March we got a 'clarification' from the Cabinet Secretary that only the NHS and Teachers were scored against Barnett. For the rest there was just an 'expectation' from the Treasury that Scotland would do as they wished.

Well I have an 'expectation' that my golf handicap might improve, but in reality that's not very likely. You would have thought that an SNP Cabinet Secretary wouldn't feel obliged to kowtow to a Treasury 'expectation' either. For example, when Scotland introduced free care for the elderly the then Scottish Government suggested to the Treasury that they might like to hand over the savings in welfare benefits. Not surprisingly they got short shrift.

Today's statement now gets a bit more confusing, added to by John Swinney's answers to questions. The NHS and Teachers Barnett consequences appear to have risen from £200m to £235m and the overall Treasury expectation from £375m to £400m. I know inflation is rising, but that's a lot over a few months! Then he avoided answering the direct question of what he would do about LGPS contributions. I hope I am wrong, but that begins to sound like him spotting an opportunity for a bit of Scottish 'tax' raising at the expense of local government staff.

His analysis of the UK government's plans was spot on and we have welcomed that in our response. This is an unfair and unnecessary attack on public service workers. These additional contributions are not necessary to fund pensions in Scotland; they are simply a ‘tax’ on staff to pay back government debts that were raised to bail out the banks. Incidentally, with classic bad timing, RBS announced £1m share payouts for Directors. You couldn't make this up!

We also welcomed his commitment to further dialogue. Nobody wants a major industrial dispute in Scotland. So we need to find a better way to avoid large scale opt-out that will wreck the schemes and leave both governments with longer term costs.

Shared service and the Clyde Valley

2011-06-15T09:29:00.000+01:00

The latest stage in the Clyde Valley shared services saga has councils apparently agreeing to pursue further a range of proposals. Let’s be clear, there is nothing wrong in principle with councils and other public service organisations sharing services. Many of the initiatives being pursued across Scotland reflect the absence of a regional level in Scottish local government for appropriate services.

What is almost always wrong is the large ‘back office’ shared service model being considered in Clyde Valley. Consultants come along and produce a model that looks logical based on economies of scale. They offer the prospects of job and cash savings, in this case apparently 1000 jobs and £19m to £29m revenue savings. However, this is illusory because this model almost never delivers. Experience shows that the savings rarely materialise and certainly not at the level to justify the up front expenditure involved. Transaction costs increase and work is simply displaced onto other staff. Not just our experience, but reflected in studies from the USA and Australia as well as in England. More details in the UNISON Scotland briefing.

Let me illustrate this with two examples I was personally involved in negotiating, not from the public sector, but from the supposedly lean and efficient private sector. These happened over ten years ago, so we can now properly evaluate their effectiveness.

One Scottish company with operations across the UK decided to take their transactional HR staff from operational units and centralise them into a shared service centre. On paper this was going to save nearly £1m. Ten years on senior operational directors tell me the actual savings were not realised, the service is poor, and much of the routine work has been displaced to other staff. In his words “I now have scarce, highly paid, senior operational staff performing clerical tasks – badly!”

The second example comes from another very large Scottish company that decentralised its IT functions to each operational division. It used to be centralised, but some 15 years ago they followed the then management fad, promoted by guru Tom Peters, and split it up. Then a new consultant came along and persuaded them that the future was in shared services and outsourcing. That’s what they did and five years later the Directors of Finance and HR came to me furiously exclaiming that the operational divisions, had in effect, reinvented their IT units. Why? Because they quickly discovered they were paying over the odds for a range of administrative tasks that their own staff could do cheaper and quicker – just like they use to do! Result, the company was paying twice for the same service and their total IT costs were enormous when benchmarked against similar companies.

Anyone considering creating shared service factories should also read John Seddon’s book ‘Systems Thinking in the Public Sector’. He also gives a range of examples of why this approach simply drives up transaction costs because the new service ends up mainly dealing with failure demand rather than resolving the real issues. The shared service managers produce impressive looking statistics showing all the calls they have dealt with. The problem is that they are measuring transactions not solutions. Anyone who has dealt with a service call centre will have experience of being passed around the system. Well that’s what this type of shared service does in buckets.

Then we have the process. The Clyde Valley initiative is a classic example of how not to do it. To be fair, Sir John Arbuthnott in his initial review was a model of openness. But when the project went back to the local authorities for development they reverted to their traditional industrial relations model. Disappear into darkened rooms with the consultants, work up a proposal and only bring it to the staff and their representatives when they have invested lots of time and money. As a consequence they feel the need to defend their solution, even when the obvious practicalities invade the model. Not surprisingly, the staff who have been treated like mushrooms, react sceptically and conflict develops.

Shared services can make a positive contribution to effective and efficient public service delivery. But adopting models that have already failed world wide and failing to properly engage staff who deliver the service, is not the solution.

Welfare Reform Bill & Housing Benefit

2011-06-12T23:02:00.000+01:00

The Welfare Reform Bill is back to the Commons this week at the Report Stage. One of the most dangerous provisions relates to including Housing Benefit in the new Universal Credit.

Under the current Housing Benefit rules, council and housing association tenants can choose to have their Housing Benefit paid directly to their landlord. There is also a provision, where a tenant is in arrears of rent by eight weeks or more, for the council to request that Housing Benefit is paid directly to the landlord. This is a vital provision that ensures that the rent is paid and not spent on other items. Tenants on benefits have a tight budget and with energy and other bills rising, there is a real risk of non-payment and growing rent arrears.

This will lead to the need to reinstate an army of rent arrears staff and could undermine the credit rating of housing associations who need to borrow to build new homes. Shelter Scotland recently warned that the Scottish Government's target of building 6000 new homes was already looking challenging. This will make it even less likely. The UK Government appears to believe that Direct Debit is the solution. It isn't. Many tenants don't have bank accounts and even if they do, Direct Debit doesn't guarantee payment of rent.

UNISON Scotland represents some 2000 staff working on Housing Benefit. It appears that the DWP believes it can administer this benefit through call centres instead of having local offices where Housing Benefit staff can speak directly to claimants, explain issues, answer queries and inspect documents (such as tenancy agreements) which otherwise would have to trusted to the post or scanned. There are real equality challenges for those with disabilities about losing local offices and staff and many vulnerable claimants may find it more difficult to access the Universal Credit system. More on this in our briefing to MPs.

The cuts in Housing Benefit will have a serious impact on many tenants in Scotland and across the UK. They are bad enough, but these administrative changes will have far reaching consequences for social housing in Scotland.

Goodbye Sir Ian!

2011-06-07T17:54:00.000+01:00

The Water Industry Commission has published its annual report.

The report gives more evidence of the benefits of having water as a public service in Scotland. Stable prices, improved customer service and reducing leakage this year.

The report makes some fanciful claims about the benefits of competition in the business retail sector. There is little here that could not have been achieved by a water efficiency programme. We could have saved the millions spent on regulatory systems, rebranding etc.

There is much emphasis in the report on cost savings at the WIC. Not surprising after a series of investigations by the The Herald has highlighted lavish expenditure. The latest was spending about £1000 a month ferrying around senior executives, including trips home from an expensive restaurant for its chief executive, Alan Sutherland.

The WIC Chair, Sir Ian Byatt is leaving the Commission this month. This former privatisation advisor to Margaret Thatcher was a very bizarre appointment to this post. He has campaigned relentlessly in favour of privatising Scottish Water and has cost the water charge payer a small fortune for stepping well outside his remit. Again we can thank The Herald for investigatory persistence.

As I have called for Sir Ian's dismissal on several occasions the decision to replace him is very welcome. I am not expecting an invite to his leaving do. Cherio Sir Ian, you will not be missed!

Too many councils?

2011-06-04T09:28:00.000+01:00

The discussion on public service reform in Scotland quickly focuses on the number of councils, police boards etc. The argument goes that we have too many for a country of 5 million souls. This was repeated by the Independent Budget Review and others. While we do have a lot of different organisations delivering public services, do we really have too many councils?

If we take a wider European perspective the answer is clearly no. Scotland actually has the smallest number of councils per head of population in Europe. Similar size Scandinavian countries can have between three and six times more councils. Even in England, councils are on average nearly a third smaller. By the way, they have more councillors as well.

The big difference is that they don't have all the unelected quangos or other fragmented provision that we have in Scotland. Services are integrated at a local level under democratic control. Even services like policing that some in Scotland argue can only be run on a national basis.

The other big difference is finance. Across Europe local government raises much more of its finance for local services locally. In Scotland and across the UK councils are heavily reliant on national governments. Since the Council Tax freeze Scottish councils are now entirely reliant on national spending decisions. This also breaks the link between voting and paying for services. When you make that link issues like the so called 'postcode lottery' become less significant.

Finally, does any of this matter if the outcome is the same? While a direct causal link is difficult to establish, it is the case that countries with more decentralised local government achieve better outcomes for all their people. It is at least arguable that this is because they have a better focus on the needs of very local populations. Many of Scotland's councils are not 'local' at all, they are regions.

In the current public service reform debate there is a risk that we take a simplistic view of the structure of public services. The picture is more complex, but it is clear that a strong, democratically accountable local government is an important part of the solution. By European standards Scotland has a relatively weak local government structure.

Panorama and the care industry

2011-06-01T07:34:00.000+01:00

Last night's Panorama was a shocking example of abuse in a private residential unit for people with learning disabilities and autism.

It is one of many stories about the privatisation of care that I have highlighted in a blog this morning on the UNISON Scotland site. This all adds up to an urgent need to review our approach to care in Scotland in the context of a population that will be increasingly dependent on care.

Let us be clear, there are thousands of dedicated care workers in the public, private and voluntary sector. Incidents such as those highlighted in last night's programme are thankfully the exception.

However, looking at the cases that cross my desk as head of legal services in recent years, I have become increasingly concerned over the treatment of staff and the impact on care. There are too many cases of very poor treatment of staff in the private and the commercial end of the third sector. If staff are treated badly then it must have an impact on the quality of care.

All of this means we should take a careful look at care policy in Scotland and the UK.

Libraries and Books

2011-05-31T22:00:00.000+01:00

A new experience for me today. I find myself supporting the views of David Gray, principal of Erskine Stewart's Melville Schools, Edinburgh. Now normally I would have little in common with private school teachers, but his piece in today's Scotsman is spot on.

Firstly, he makes the case for the school library. "As places, they have retained an aura of reverence and quiet study, and for young people in good schools, they are at the heart of intellectual thought and reflection."

Secondly, he makes the case for books. "There is also incipient evidence that the reader of the screen does not assimilate information as accurately or as effectively as in applying his (or possibly her David!) mind to a book which always involves steady, persistent concentration, a key to effective assimilation, analysis and evaluation."

This must be right and that is why we need to come together to defend our libraries. Many councils are looking to cut back their library provision. In particular there has been a move towards reduced opening times and employing less qualified staff. In a UNISON survey more than 40% members reported cuts in service and two-thirds felt staffing levels were inadequate. Nearly 90% indicated public support for the service, but nearly two-thirds felt that the service was not valued by their local authority.

Since the start of the recession libraries across Scotland are reporting increases in visits and lending issues. 30 million visits last year, bucking the trend. Libraries have diversified with the introduction of downloadable audio files and e-books, but the value of the book should not be underestimated.

You can love Scottish libraries by signing this online petition today.

Taking Scotland Forward

2011-05-26T18:26:00.000+01:00

Whatever stance you take on the First Minister, it has to be admitted that he does the 'vision thing' very well. His speech today setting out the Scottish Government's vision for the next five years was full of vision, even if the detail was a little sparse.

The comparison with what the Con-dem coalition is doing in England was good. We need a different vision and we got it. However, he did try to give the impression that we are already exempt. "budgets slashed, priorities changed" is happening in every council, health board and quango in Scotland, not just 'elsewhere on these isles".
Constitutional issues "are a priority", but not such a priority that it will be addressed before "well into the second half" of this parliament. Points on the Scotland Bill will generally be supported - except Corporation Tax.

The social wage/social contract line is generally fine and worthy of further development. I particularly liked the attack on Thatcher's "no such thing as society" and the reference to 'the market" and "crazed ideology". However, not at all sure "people understand that public spending must be restrained". Elements perhaps of Thatcher's economics that the FM has praised in the past? There is a better way First Minister!

The juxtaposition between the wage freeze and the Council Tax freeze was not very clever as the STUC has pointed out. In may be politically popular but this is a regressive tax cut that does little for our low paid members.

The £250m Scottish Futures Fund is being stretched very thin over five different initiatives. All welcome but I hope this isn't more presentational spin. Core budgets being cut at the delivery end while ministers parade a series of new announcements. All administrations have been guilty of this in the past.

Good lines on sectarianism, bigotry and booze. These are certainly not compatible with the Scotland we all want. Investment in housing would be welcome, but this had one of the biggest cuts in the current budget. Jobs, emerging markets and the low carbon economy is a good vision, delivery will be more difficult in the current world economic environment.

Overall, good on vision, but something of the proverbial curates egg on the detail.

More on pensions

2011-05-26T09:36:00.000+01:00

A follow up to yesterday's blog on pensions following the publication this morning of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee report on public service pensions. I was interviewed on Radio Scotland this morning on this issue.

We should welcome the PAC's warning that the Treasury has not tested the impact of the changes underlying their cost projections on public service pensions. Changes could lead to additional spending elsewhere including demand for means tested benefits.

In 2008 we reached agreements with the Scottish and UK governments on the future funding of public service pensions. The new UK government has unilaterally slapped an unaffordable 50% increase in employee contributions at a time of pay cuts and rising inflation. We warned that this will lead to further opt-outs from pensions, placing new burdens on welfare benefits.

The PAC report also says that officials appeared to define affordability on the basis of public perception. You would have hoped, that in the Treasury at least, Lord Hutton’s report buried once and for all the myth of gold plated pensions. But the UK government clearly thought this was an opportunity to grab more cash from low paid public service workers. This is on top of cuts to pension benefits by 15% as a result of the switch of index from RPI to CPI and plans to make everyone work longer.

The contributions issue in particular is an unwelcome agenda item for the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, because this is a devolved issue. The message is the same to both governments - public service workers are being asked to pay more, work longer and get less. That’s not acceptable and will be resisted.

Pensions

2011-05-25T16:45:00.000+01:00

Big focus on pensions for me this week as I am running a series of training courses for our new branch Pensions Champions. Nearly a hundred have signed up for courses across Scotland.

The main aim of the course is to get our branch leads up to scratch on the big pension issues. The key focus is on the Con-Dem coalition's attack on public service pensions that can be summed up as - pay more, work longer, get less. But let's not forget the proposed changes to the state retirement pension. Sounds good on paper, but it is as yet unclear what will happen to the contracting out arrangements. If these go to pay for the £140, then that will be a further tax on employees and employers. In the public and voluntary sector we can do without even more cost pressures.

In the public service schemes the main concern is the planned 50% increase in pension contributions. Members on the course this week confirmed our concern that this will result in a major opt out of the scheme. Members simply cannot afford that sort of increase when they are facing real term pay cuts and rising inflation. The consequences will be more pensioner poverty and greater reliance on welfare benefits.

Whilst the initiative for these changes comes from the UK government, implementation will largely fall on the Scottish Parliament because public service scheme regulation is a devolved matter. Something that was clearly not well understood by commentators and politicians during the election debates. Latest on these issues can be found in the new edition of our Scottish Pensions Bulletin.

Scotland Bill

2011-05-19T13:41:00.000+01:00

The Scotland Bill has been somewhat delayed at Westminster, firstly because of the Libya debate and then the Scottish elections. The First Minister has called for the devolution of Corporation Tax, control over the Crown Estate, and immediate borrowing powers. Yesterday, he upped the ante by calling for a fresh raft of powers to be included in the Bill including control of excise duty on alcohol and cigarettes, create a new digital Scottish TV channel, and a guaranteed seat at the European table.

On Corporation Tax my view is no. I know Northern Ireland is supposed to be getting this power, but there are special circumstances and I wonder if it will actually happen. Using Corporation Tax to entice companies across the border will inevitably lead to a race to the bottom and there is no evidence that it promotes growth. And how are we going to pay for what will undoubtedly be a tax cut? Further cuts in public services.

Control over the Crown Estate is a yes. There are obvious synergies with existing devolved powers. However, we cannot expect to simply draw down income streams from UK powers without compensatory cuts in the block budget. Nice if we could but the Treasury is not daft.

Borrowing powers is a definite yes. Calman could have been stronger on this but the draft Bill is much weaker. Artificial limits and Treasury controls should go. Plus we should be able to raise bonds. This could be particularly useful for Scottish Water investment and the ideas in the Hydro Nation consultation.

Excise duties is a maybe. It would get over one of the strongest objections to the minimum pricing proposals that were defeated in the last session. Increasing the price of booze is sound, but lining the pockets of Tesco et al isn't. However, a steady stream of booze filled white vans up and down the M74 isn't very attractive either.

Broadcasting is a yes. There is no reason left for this not to be devolved. It shouldn't mean insular news and programmes. We have a long tradition of internationalism and viewers would quickly object to parochial TV and radio.

A seat at the European table is also a yes, compatible with the access that other devolved/federal institutions have. A Europe of the regions is something we should promote.

In UNISON Scotland's evidence to the Calman Commission we argued that the test for new powers should be subsidiarity. On that test many of the First Minister's are reasonable - but not all.

Youth Underclass

2011-05-18T09:34:00.000+01:00

The Prince's Trust youth charity has released a report today warning that poverty is creating a "youth underclass" in Scotland. The survey, carried out by YouGov revealed that 12% of young people in Scotland feel "people like them don't succeed in life", while 19% said they believe "few" or "none" of their goals are achievable. It also showed those growing up in poverty were more likely to feel this way - which the charity said highlights an "aspiration gap" between the UK's richest and poorest people.

Let me add a few hard Scottish statistics to the survey:

The gap between the bottom 20% and the average in learning outcomes has not narrowed in the last ten years.
The percentage of children leaving school directly into unemployment has risen to 22% for the bottom 20% of the young population of Scotland.
Youth unemployment has risen from 13% to 20% in the last 3 years and over 70% of that group are long term unemployed.
Half of all young people in Scottish prisons have been in care. This rises to 80% when looking only at those convicted of violent offences. Despite just 1% of all Scottish children having been in care.

This report from the Princes Trust is helpful in highlighting this issue and should act as a warning shot that we don't want to create another 'lost generation', as happened during the Thatcher years. In fairness to Iain Gray (and not many are at present!) this was something that he tried to get into the policy lite election debate. However, my concern is over the Trust's emphasis on "an aspiration gap between the UK's richest and poorest people."

The key issue is not 'aspiration', it's poverty and inequality. The poorest tenth of the Scottish population now have, between them, 2% of Scotland's total income. In contrast, the richest tenth have around 29% and that has grown from 25% in the last ten years. If we look at the long term trends, Scotland was becoming a slightly more equal society during the 50's and 60's, but this started to go in the wrong direction in the Thatcher years and hasn't stopped since.

So what should we as a nation do to address this issue?

In the short term we can stop cutting the public services that are trying to at least mitigate the impact of poverty on young people. Council youth services rarely have a statutory basis and as a consequence have been early targets for cuts. The same is true of the services provided by the voluntary sector in this field. Many aspects of child care are also grossly underfunded.

The medium term challenge is preventative spending in early years. Susan Deacon's report is particularly helpful in this regard. The NSPCC have also highlighted the risk of relentless intergenerational deprivation. If we put as much effort into early intervention as we have into criminal justice and anti-social behaviour - the results could be transformational.

In the longer term we have to tackle the underlying causes of poverty and inequality. Not just because it is right to help those at disadvantage. Not just because it it will avoid the huge cost on the public purse of this failure demand. But most of all because more equal societies do better on every measure including economic growth. So it is in all our interests, rich and poor, to face up to this and make equality the guiding light of public policy in Scotland.

The Street

2011-05-17T21:28:00.000+01:00

Interesting experiment by Nick Robinson and the BBC with their programme The Street that Cut Everything.

The street was in Preston, but it could be pretty much any street in any town or city except for one thing. The residents of this street agreed to take part in a unique experiment. They agreed to live without all the services their council tax pays for - all, that is, except for schools for their children and the emergency services - and to let the BBC film how they got along or, more often, how they did not.

Many of the residents started from the premise that they paid too much Council Tax. However, when the 'invisible' services started to be withdrawn they soon realised how much we take these services for granted. They quickly worked out that the Council Tax they saved would not pay for private alternatives and so they had to do much for themselves. For a short period they managed to do some of this, but at a big cost in time and personal cash.

The other interesting factor was that while it did generate more community spirit in the street, it also resulted in real tensions, with neighbours quickly in real disputes. This reflects wider views as shown in an Ipsos Mori poll that showed 54% of people think that the big society is a good idea in principle but won’t work in practice, and as many as 57% also think it’s just an excuse for the government to save money by cutting back on public services. Like The Street, the poll also showed that most people have no clear view on the role of the state – they believe ‘people’ should get more involved, although they personally are too busy, and almost as many think it is up to the government anyway.

We did something similar to this last year with what we called 'A Day in the Life'. We followed one of my team, a young mum, for a day with a camera and noted all the public services she used. We were all surprised how many she came into contact with. See for yourself. We then did some calculations of what these services would cost if you had to buy them individually. Some examples are in the associated briefing. Schooling, security, private health care and refuse collection alone would bankrupt most citizens.

The key message from all this? Collective provision works. It not only binds us together as a community but it makes economic sense as well. Public Works!

Energy prices

2011-05-13T22:38:00.000+01:00

Recent reports indicate millions of homes in Scotland face even higher fuel bills this winter. Customers are already paying an extra £1.50 a week following a 7% rise in their bills from last month. Suppliers like Scottish Gas are preparing the ground for a second round of price increases.

THE squeeze on beleaguered workers is set to get worse after the Bank of England warned that gas and electricity bills could rise by as much as £200 a year to record levels. This could push even CPI inflation to 5% later this year. uSwitch.com, the price comparison and switching service, said the Bank’s predictions would mean annual fuel bills would hit an all-time high of £1279.

At the same time consumers should be aware of misleading sales techniques. Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) has been found guilty of tricking people into switching from their existing energy firms. It had claimed they were paying too much to their current suppliers when this was not the case.

It is thought to be the first time that one of the big six energy firms has been prosecuted for using dishonest sales techniques but the problem of doorstep trickery has plagued gas and electricity consumers since the industry was privatised in the 1990s.

Audrey Gallacher, of Consumer Focus, said the firm's behaviour had involved "deliberate and wilful mis-selling. Misleading doorstep energy sales have been a nightmare for consumers for years, leaving many switching to a worse energy deal. This verdict has revealed a deliberate tactic by SSE, not the behaviour of a rogue salesperson."

UNISON members in energy companies deal with the confusion caused by the so called energy market every day. Others are pressurised into sales techniques they are not comfortable with. Reform is long overdue.

Post election finances

2011-05-10T17:48:00.000+01:00

We spent some time today looking at the key challenges for UNISON members arising from the Scottish Parliament election result. The key concern remains finance.

The Scottish budget is already facing a cumulative loss, in real terms, of £39bn over the 15 year period before we return to 2009 spending levels. The CPPR analysis of the SNP manifesto shows additional commitments totalling over £1bn in the next four years. This includes the growing cost of the planned 5 year Council Tax freeze that according to Professor David Bell is likely to cost £535m. That is a £250m shortfall on the SNP manifesto estimate. Put another way by the CPPR, the Council tax freeze will cost 3,300 public sector jobs.

These commitments are apparently to be financed by further ‘efficiency’ savings. In addition, in common with the other political parties, they largely ignore the additional demand pressures (demographic change, recession etc) that will add to the pressures on the Scottish budget. NESTA estimates that additional demands in health, social care and justice alone will amount to more than £27bn over the same time period.

The attraction of the efficiency savings approach is that the responsibility for making cuts fall on delivery bodies (councils, health boards etc) where our members are largely employed. The CPPR report sums this up well:

“At present it looks like whoever forms the next Scottish Government will be passing on much of the accountability and responsibility for making these decisions 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.”

Capital funding shortfalls are likely to be a growing concern and The Scottish Futures Trust will drive forward with PFI schemes including the Hub Initiative and NPDT model. This will add to the growing burden of PFI costs.

The main ‘efficiency’ saving that contributes to plugging the financial gap set out above has been the public service pay freeze. This has been coupled with attacks on terms and conditions in several UNISON service groups. It is likely that pay restraint will continue to be a feature of the Scottish Government’s ‘efficiency’ agenda, possibly coupled with their commitment on no compulsory redundancies, in those services they have direct control over. The CPPR estimates that public service workers who retain their jobs are likely to suffer a 6-12% reduction in the spending power of their pay up to 2014-15.

These financial issues would be similar whoever won the election. All the more reason for a greater focus than we got in the election on the alternatives. There is a better way than simply implementing the Con-Dem cuts.

Veolia and water privatisation

2011-05-03T10:46:00.000+01:00

The world’s largest water and sewage service provider is Veolia. This firm is also the biggest advocate for water privatisation worldwide. It is important for Scotland because it would love to get its hands on Scottish Water. Building on their less than successful foothold with a PFI sewage scheme bought from Thames Water. There is a good analysis of Veolia's variable record at Powerbase.

The US consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch has published a report Veolia Environnement: A Profile of the World’s Largest Water Service Corporation. This report shows how the public backlash against Veolia’s attempts to dominate the water services market has undermined the company’s revenues with an 11% drop in operating income in its water division.

Veolia has focused its water and sewage activities over the next three years to expand its presence in Europe and Asia. Meanwhile, customers across the globe suffer water shortages, skyrocketing rates and irregular billing practices under Veolia Environnement’s service. Some communities, such as Paris, France have ended their relationships with Veolia early, realising the potential cost savings under public operation.

If there is anyone left in Scotland who thinks water privatisation is a good idea - read this report.

May Day

2011-05-01T22:06:00.000+01:00

The May Day celebrations in Glasgow got a real boost this year with a range of events running up to the traditional march and rally. Theatre, comedy and music all featured in a packed, and well supported, programme.

Today's march was one of the best attended for many a year, aided by the great weather that made us wish we were marching to the Green. Until you recalled the wetter years!

Great turnout by UNISON branches in the city. Particularly the revitalised Strathclyde Police and Fire branch (see below). Great family day out with a serious political point as well.

International Workers Memorial day

2011-04-28T09:25:00.000+01:00

Across Scotland today we will commemorate International Workers Memorial Day. On this day we remember the dead and fight for the living.

This year is particularly important because the Con-dem coalition is adding to the risks by piling pressure on staff and enforcement agencies, cutting away at health and safety.

Last year the Labour Government officially recognised this day and it is pleasing to see far more local authorities across Scotland marking the day. Workers deserve to know that they will not be at risk when they start a day’s work - they should not have to fear for their lives.

Around 70 per cent of workplace accidents are due to the poor health and safety management. The Government must stop this figure spiraling - there is a better way.

Consequences of council charges

2011-04-27T22:33:00.000+01:00

Just to illustrate a point I have made in earlier posts, there are consequences of increasing council charges to fund the Council Tax freeze.

Today I was on the election trail in Kilmarnock. The council has recently introduced charges for special refuse uplifts. As a consequence local people report an increase in fly tipping. Walking around just one scheme in the town I came across furniture and other items just dumped. An eyesore and a safety concern.

Below is a picture of just one example and a dangerous one at that. Fridges not only contain dangerous chemicals but can be a death trap for young children playing in them. The Council Tax freeze is not a free policy, it has consequences and some of them could be fatal.

Bias in appeals

2011-04-27T09:39:00.000+01:00

Interesting EAT decision (Scottish employer) on bias in appeals, an issue that comes up often in the smaller employers we deal with.

In Watson v University of Strathclyde EATS/0021/10 ( no relative!) the pursuer worked as a publications officer in the University of Strathclyde. Mr Taylor was the director of marketing and Dr West was the secretary to the University who appointed Mr Taylor. In 2005, Mr Taylor was convicted of a breach of the peace and offered to resign. Dr West decided that this was not required as this was a personal matter and did not impact on his job.
Before this incident, the pursuer had a history of concern about Mr Taylor's behaviour, which she considered violent and aggressive. This conviction naturally highlighted this concern. Problems with their relationship continued and she submitted a grievance alleging inappropriate behaviour and autocratic management that was rejected. She felt Dr West had a conflict of interest because of his support for Taylor. She then refused to attend an appeal panel because Dr West was a member and subsequently resigned claiming constructive dismissal.

The ET concluded that Dr West's membership of the appeal panel was not a fundamental breach of contract. However, the EAT found that, for there to be a fair hearing, it must be free not only from actual bias but from apparent bias, and that this applied equally to any hearing that forms part of a grievance process. Any reasonable employer would have considered the claimant's reasonable concern that there was bias and that it would not be fair to her to include Dr West in the appeal panel.

Whilst it is obvious that a person who is the subject of a grievance should not be involved in the hearing of that grievance, employers also need to consider the position of other members of staff who are very closely associated with the subject of the grievance. The EAT is not suggesting that an employer setting up a grievance appeal panel is routinely required to consider specifically whether or not there is "apparent bias" in the panel. However, any reasonable employer is required to have regard to the need to afford an employee a fair hearing of their grievance throughout, including at the appeal stage. It was key in this case that the claimant had raised an allegation of bias.

Council Tax and public finance

2011-04-26T14:58:00.000+01:00

An unsurprising poll in the Scotsman today indicates that 75% of Scots support the continuing Council Tax freeze. Given rising inflation, VAT increases and a wage freeze for many, it is not surprising that the public favours tax cuts. This is reinforced by the fact that only 10% support a Local Income Tax at the rate necessary to replace the Council Tax.

Of course much of this polling depends on the questions you ask. I was doing a focus group with UNISON members last week and they equally, if by smaller numbers, favoured a tax cut. However, when asked the question if they favoured the charge increases most councils are implementing to plug the financial gap, the answer was no, because they identified the regressive nature of charges. Even fewer were in favour when the funding gap is identified and the consequences for further cuts in services.

All of this demonstrates one of the more dismal aspects of the election campaign, namely the unwillingness to explain the scale of the financial crisis in public spending and the consequences. It is not just the budget cuts, and they are bad enough, but they come at a time when demand for services is rising. Public finances face at least four years of cuts as part of the Con-Dem deficit reduction plan. In Scotland the downward pressure on resources could last for at least 10 years with some £40 billion of expenditure lost to public services. It could take at least a further 10 years before spending returns to 2009 levels.

The Tories claim to be telling it as it is, despite supporting a council Tax freeze and other tax cuts. However, even in the rhetoric not all candidates are on message. My local Tory MSP has sent me a mountain of paper in the last few months telling me that he is in favour of more teachers, police, better roads etc. He would be better off telling his colleagues Cameron and Osborne.

Workplace Retirement Income

2011-04-21T16:18:00.000+01:00

I met Lord McFall and his colleagues on the Workplace Retirement Income Commission in Glasgow today. The Workplace Retirement Income Commission (WRIC) is the independent review of retirement saving. The Commission is seeking to find better ways to provide retirement income for the millions of working people who depend on workplace saving for security and dignity in retirement. They have produced a very good background paper on workplace retirement saving as part of their call for evidence.

Not surprisingly, I emphasised the undermining of public service pensions by the UK Government and in particular the 50% increase in contributions that is likely to drive many low paid workers out of their pension schemes. But low income is not the only barrier to getting people to save.

Savers need to have confidence in the long term benefit of schemes and in this regard the switch from RPI to CPI has seriously dented confidence. UK private pensions are notoriously poor value for money with Dutch schemes delivering almost twice the benefits. Confidence in the financial institutions is rightly at an all time low.

A new approach is needed to simplify the pensions system with easy to understand products where the benefits are not eaten away by management fees. I cautioned against less regulation and in favour of a more prescriptive approach that starts to build retirement income at an early age.

The Commission is planning to publish an interim report in June.

STUC - Day 3

2011-04-20T14:56:00.000+01:00

Transport dominated the debates this morning, but the most powerful contributions were on domestic violence. Two sisters made very moving contributions based on their own tragic experiences including UNISON's Marie Garrity. A real wake up call for everyone.

The living wage debate highlighted again the issue of low pay. The adoption of the living wage by the Scottish Government and some councils is welcome. But it needs a Living Wage Unit, on the London model, to drive this policy forward, particularly through public procurement. That is what Scottish Labour is rightly proposing.

We had a typically polished performance from the First Minister this morning. More statesmanlike, following the parcel bomb story this morning, than his usual style. He pressed many of the right buttons for the audience although still failed to grasp our concerns over the need for a balanced energy policy. He made a good contrast with NHS privatisation in England, and he is entitled to claim credit for a good record. However, he somewhat over egged the case when he claimed no PFI. The Scottish Futures Trust is developing wide scale PFI schemes in Scotland. The Hub Initiative in NHS Scotland is a straight copy of the English LIFT PFI scheme.

At lunchtime I spoke at a fringe meeting organised by the Campaign Against Climate Change. I spoke about what needs to be done to deliver on the targets in the Climate Change (S) Act. In particular on the need for a strong public duty and action on Green Workplaces. The Scottish Government failed to introduce mandatory annual reporting, weakening the duty considerably. There was a good debate on energy and manufacturing strategy issues.

Pensions was the big debate of the afternoon. Led by a motion from UNISON Scotland. This is an issue that unites the movement, particularly over the proposed pension contribution increases. Delegates described this a tax on public service workers because not one penny goes into pension increases. One delegate offered to swop his pension for the one George Osborne approved for the publicly owned bank Chief Executives.

The debate on care for the elderly highlighted today's FAI report on the Uddingston care home fire that resulted in 14 deaths. The report states that the deaths were preventable. Those who argue for less regulation should read this report carefully.

Overall this year's STUC has put a real focus on the Better Way campaign and the alternative to the Con-Dem government's cuts. My only tricky moment, as highlighted in the Herald Diary today, was being mistaken for Bob Crow! My worst nightmare realised!

STUC - Day2

2011-04-19T18:42:00.000+01:00

Public services dominated the morning session of Congress today. Delegate after delegate highlighted the impact of the Con-Dem coalition's spending cuts on a range of public services. The planned 60,000 job losses will also have a big impact on the economy with a similar number of jobs going in the private sector. Low paid working women will be the most affected, undermining family budgets when they are most under strain.

A UNISON motion focused on services to elderly people. In this sector personalisation is being used as a cover for cuts. UNISON Scottish Convenor, Lilian Macer summed up the argument when she said:

"And it's a low, mean, dishonest trick to try to implement cuts to the services of the most vulnerable people in our society. We believe that everyone should have as much independent, choice and control over their care as they want. But this has to be real choice, not the only option because other facilities and arrangements have been closed or made unavailable."

The afternoon session had a Westminster feel to it. It started with Ian Davidson MP, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee setting out the issues his committee planned to investigate this year. He was followed later in the afternoon by the Shadow Secretary of State, Ann McKechin MP. I also attended a lunch time event with colleagues from the energy industry. Not much support for the SNP manifesto plans there. A balanced energy policy retains widespread support from those who work in the sector.

One of the Scottish Affairs Committee investigations is into health and safety in Scotland. We met several of the MPs in the afternoon to highlight our concerns over the impact of cuts at the HSE. Fewer inspections, guidance and projects will inevitably undermine safety in Scotland. As will similar cuts in the other enforcement agency, environment health departments. Stress was the biggest safety risk identified by every union at the meeting. The largest cause of sickness absence and often the product of work intensification and human resource strategies.

STUC - Day 1

2011-04-18T18:48:00.000+01:00

At the STUC Congress in Ayr this week. Bit of a trek from the town centre to the Ayr Racecourse, but a very attractive conference venue. Sunny weather helps!

The morning session on the Better Way campaign was an excellent innovation. Good use of film clips to illustrate the campaign activity undertaken by the STUC and affiliates. But the important contributions came from some 30 community organisations who came along to support the campaign and explain how the cuts are impacting on a wide range of service users. This shows that the alternative to the Con-Dem coalition cuts is building support.

Scottish Labour Leader Iain Gray addressed conference in the afternoon. He focused on workplace issues and jobs. He confirmed Scottish Labour's manifesto commitments on issues like workplace violence and workplace health. He also promised meaningful engagement with the trade unions over economic policy with a new consultative structure on this and in local government. But his real message was on jobs and in particular youth unemployment. Big commitments, but it is clearly an issue he cares deeply about. Anyone who lived through the Thatcher years should share this vision.

Good debate on the economy with a focus on the fair taxation elements of the Better Way campaign. HMRC workers highlighting the £130 billion of avoided tax. This alone would wipe out the deficit.

Council Tax and Outcomes

2011-04-18T09:20:00.000+01:00

A strong and credible intervention in the election debate this morning from CoSLA on the Council Tax freeze. In particular pointing out that £70m simply doesn't cover the cost.

I would add that more attention needs to be given to the impact of council charging, the method most councils are using to plug the gap in addition to cutting services. I have spoken to a number of candidates in the election who report increasing public concern over the consequences of charging. One example just this morning is fly tipping when the council charges for special uplifts, creating an eyesore and safety concerns.
The bigger point in the CoSLA statement this morning is the need to focus preventative spending on better outcomes. This is a point that has come out many times in the evidence to the Christie Commission. Despite rising levels of public spending over the last decade, improved outcomes have not been experienced by all the people of Scotland. We have made little progress on mitigating inequalities in wealth and income, health, safety, learning and employment outcomes; in many cases, things have actually got worse.

A few statistics from the Improvement Service covering the past ten years illustrates the point clearly:

• The gap in healthy life expectancy between the 20% most deprived areas and the 20% least deprived areas in Scotland increased from 8 years to 13.5 years across the period.
• Not only do the most deprived members of our community have shorter lives, but the percentage of their life lived with ill health has increased from 12% to 15%.
• The gap between the bottom 20% and the average in learning outcomes has not narrowed.
• The percentage of children leaving school directly into unemployment has risen to 22% for the bottom 20% of the young population of Scotland.
• Youth unemployment has risen from 13% to 20% in the last 3 years and over 70% of that group are long term unemployed.

We know from the research of the Equality Trust (The Spirit Level) and others that more equal societies do better on nearly every measure. It also makes sense in public spending terms because it is the most disadvantaged households that will place the largest burdens on public finances throughout their life time.

It is easy to blame the politicians for not addressing this. However, they have to get elected and the public at large do not as yet fully understand this point. I suspect any political party writing an outcome based manifesto would have a big credibility gap. None the less they have a role with the media and civic society to make the case that this is the only way forward for Scotland.

SNP Manifesto

2011-04-15T10:24:00.000+01:00

Quite late in the day we now have the SNP manifesto. As you would expect from the current government party it is largely a description of what they claim to have achieved over the past four years.

There is plenty in this manifesto to support. The SNP record on aspects of health policy is sound and in particular their rejection of privatisation and no compulsory redundancies. Similarly, there is an unequivocal commitment against the privatisation of Scottish water and the trojan horse of mutualisation. Coupled with an ambitious vision for developing our greatest asset. The policy on student fees is welcome as is the promised additional funding.

Some new commitments on funding early years is welcome. UNISON has been critical about aspects of the Scottish Government policy is this area that has been stronger on frameworks than action. The new focus on preventative spending and the development of family centres is welcome. Although there is still an obsession with nursery teachers and other early years professionals barely get a mention.

Other aspects of the manifesto are less welcome. In justice the claimed 1000 police officers 'on the beat' is outrageously misleading. Many of these police officers are backfilling civilian staff - behind a desk, not on the beat where they should be. Five more years of the Council Tax freeze may be popular but there is no mention of the schools, day centres and other council services that will be closed to pay for this. Not to mention the increase in charges for services that are more regressive than the Council Tax. The energy policy with 100% coming from renewables has rightly been ridiculed in this morning's media. A balanced energy policy is always the right policy.

Overall a bit of the proverbial curate's egg. Good in parts, but with some very silly bits. And of course we have the big distraction of separation. Nothing specific on the timing of another referendum promise - so we can expect five more years of complaining (in or out of government) rather than focusing on the key issues.

Climate Change day

2011-04-13T14:11:00.000+01:00

Political parties contesting the Scottish Parliament elections are marking "climate day", organised by the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS) coalition. SCCS is a coalition of around 60 organisations in Scotland (including UNISON) that are campaigning on climate change. Together SCCS represents over two million people in Scotland, an amazing 40% of the population.

A range of proposals are on offer today as the parties highlight their green credentials and related proposals from their manifestos. These include a range of practical measures to help meet Scotland's radical carbon reduction targets.

One of the issues UNISON is highlighting is the importance of a strong public sector duty and the promotion of Green Workplaces. Scotland has the toughest targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of any country in the world – and our local authorities and other public bodies have a major part to play in making a success of our ambition. Thanks to campaigning by UNISON and others in SCCS, public bodies have statutory duties under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Yet the Scottish Government does not plan to require public bodies to report on what they are actually doing to reduce emissions – making it difficult to monitor their performance and therefore their overall progress.

If you can only do one thing for climate change today then please go to the SCCS Livestream webpage from 7.30-9pm tonight for the first ever online election debate on climate change. From the comfort of your own home, you'll be able to watch a lively discussion between party spokespeople, and post your climate change questions to them live The debate will be hosted by former BBC (Reporting Scotland) journalist, Alan Mackay.

BBC Poll shows support for public services

2011-04-11T11:02:00.000+01:00

BBC Scotland has published its traditional issues poll today. Given the recession and financial crisis you might have expected something of shift in priorities.

However, the poll shows that traditional public service issues dominate, including the NHS, Police and education in the top three. Mind you there is some really sloppy BBC wording on the police question. The Scottish Labour manifesto at least talks about police on the beat - the SNP government have put expensive police officers behind desks to replace the sacked civilian police staffs.

Not surprisingly given pay freezes and inflation, tax cutting proposals are in the top half. With the exception of business taxes that gets a big thumbs down. Perhaps the message about corporate tax dodging is getting through! The crazy Local Income Tax bombs badly near the bottom of the list. Watch out for more ducking and diving on this issue.

A referendum on independence also languishes at the bottom reflecting peoples priorities in these difficult times. Interestingly, so does the national police force, possibly reflecting a preference for local services.

Overall a positive expression of public support for public services in these difficult times.

Housing policy

2011-04-07T17:14:00.000+01:00

I was running a workshop on Scottish housing issues at our UK housing seminar in York today.

In a tight financial environment there was a feeling that housing appears to have slipped down the list of political priorities. The Scottish Government has cut the housing budget by 22% this year and none of the other parties are making significant spending commitments.

Not that need for housing has gone away. Nearly 200,000 households are on housing waiting lists and over 56,000 made homeless applications. Homeless applications have increased by 26% in the last ten years.The number of new houses being built in all sectors goes no where near meeting this demand.

We are also making little progress in improving housing stock condition. 298,000 homes in Scotland are affected by dampness or condensation, 44% fail the energy standard and 62% of social housing falls beneath the Scottish Housing Quality Standard.

The funding plans of the Scottish Government simply spread the available finance around a little thinner, although they have at least built a small number of new council houses. Small programmes like the National Housing Trust and the Innovation and Investment Fund make a good political announcement but deliver small numbers of new houses. Labour isn't promising much more in finance terms although they have an innovative loan guarantee scheme for first time buyers.

The workshop looked at how we might use local authority pension funds (they are worth £20bn in Scotland) to generate housing bonds to finance new build. However, the UK government cuts in housing benefit could impact on this idea, not to mention undermining the pension scheme itself.

Scottish Labour manifesto

2011-04-07T00:07:00.000+01:00

Another day another manifesto. This time Scottish Labour.

Scottish Labour prepares its manifesto very differently from other parties. It is the culmination of a two year process of consultation, not just with party activists, but with Civic Scotland and the public. And it shows throughout the manifesto. From a UNISON perspective, when other manifestos talk about teachers, Labour also talks to nursery staff, classroom assistants and others. The same applies to other services. By properly engaging with trade unions the manifesto reflects many of the concerns of the workers who deliver essential services.

Each section of the manifesto starts with a real person's story. Then a vision of what Labour stands for, followed by the detailed policies. No uncosted promises that a government in the current financial climate can't meet. But lots of often small, but important changes, that could improve Scotland.

Unlike 2007 this manifesto is unrelentingly positive. Its about what Scottish Labour will do, not what others haven't. I think that reflects what people want to hear about in this election.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything in this manifesto. I am sceptical about the creation of national services for care, police and fire, until it can be demonstrated that there are effective mechanisms for local delegation and accountability. The Council Tax freeze and small business bonus may have been forced by political reality, but it is still wrong. All the political parties claim to be committed to preventative spending, yet these tax cuts would pay for 9000 extra early years staff. That could make a real impact on children from disadvantaged homes during those vital early years, saving literally £billions in later years.

However, probably the most important message from Scottish Labour is that the Scottish Parliament was created for the hard times. There may not be much cash but the parliament can protect Scotland from the worst excesses the Con-Dem Government is imposing in England. As Iain Gray put it very clearly:

"It means we can say, with our hand on our heart.
You see what the Tories are doing to the NHS in England? We won’t have that here.

You see what the Tories are doing to the universities in England? We won’t have that here.

You see what the Tories are doing to council services in England? We won’t have that here.

This is what our parliament is for. And Labour will use it to fight for the things that really matter"

A strong and important message to go with a manifesto that is about what we can do with our own devolved Parliament.

Lib-Dem Manifesto

2011-04-05T23:48:00.000+01:00

Scottish Liberal-Democrat manifesto launch today. Big emphasis on the 'Scottish' here because no one is mentioning Nick Clegg.

Not a good start for the Lib-Dems with candidate defections and another retiring MSP supporting Alex Salmond for FM. Even for the Lib-Dems this is bizarre. But the real problem is their UK coalition deal with the Tories that is heaping so much pain onto Scotland.

This is a difficult manifesto to comment sensibly on as there is no discernable theme. Just a mix of random policies that appears to have been written by a large committee. Not a lot to dislike, but not much to excite either. Bit like the Lib-Dems really until Clegzilla sold them out.

The headline is the privatisation of Scottish Water. Whilst the Tories clearly understand that they are privatising our water, I am still not convinced that the Lib-Dems really understand how the industry is financed. As a consequence their proposal is just illiterate. £1.5bn for an industry that has assets worth around £20bn!

Much about local delivery which is fine, including local policing. But then the actual proposals let them down. 'Payment by results' doesn't sound much like local democracy. Who pays and who judges the results? The rest of this section is another eclectic mix of policies that simple don't gel together.

Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland to go and be replaced by ill defined regional development banks. These will help businesses apparently, but no mention of the big jobs undertaken by SDS, such as careers advice. Of course it was a Lib-Dem minister in the last administration who created SDS when he should have transferred the careers service to local government. Now that would be real localism.

I could go on, and the manifesto does - for another 85 pages. The problem is still there at the end. They still have Nick Clegg.

Scottish Conservative manifesto

2011-04-04T21:28:00.000+01:00

Today we had the launch of the Scottish Conservative manifesto. Not a good start from the Tories with candidates dropping out at a rate of knots and a UK Tory government sending Scotland back to the dark days of Thatcher.

The manifesto doesn't exactly inspire confidence. We are told this is the realistic manifesto, we are not deficit deniers. Yet the manifesto proudly triumphs four years of a Council Tax freeze, that increases the financial burden on councils and new tax cuts, for business of course. A strange way to cut the deficit. We are told the deficit was caused by the failure of Labour's regulation. Yet the Tories constantly called for less regulation and they do so again in this manifesto!

And no Annabel, you haven't put 1000 extra police officers on the beat. They are sitting behind desks doing the jobs of sacked civilian staff.

Then we are offered the privatisation of Scottish Water. Sorry, we are not fooled by the old 'public interest company' trick. A move that will hand over Scotland's greatest asset to overseas water multinationals at a fraction of its real value. Then the water charge payer picks up the tab through increased water charges.

More PFI to build infrastructure. Haven't we paid enough billions more than required without going back to that failed Tory policy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, unless of course you are a big business lobbyist. The 'right to bid' for public services is offered for the voluntary sector. But the business lobby knows full well that if public services are put out for competition, they are allowed in to bid under EU procurement rules. So again the voluntary sector is being used as cover for the wholesale privatisation of Scotland's public services, including the NHS and Schools.

For what is left of our public services after wholesale privatisation we have a hotch potch of proposals. Community justice is to be moved to the prison service, apparently to aid rehabilitation but without any explanation of how this would improve matters. Oh, and we will be able to elect our local sheriff. Let's just become the 51st state of the USA and be done with it!

Over 100,000 social houses have been lost in Scotland due to the 'right to buy'. So the Tory solution to the housing crisis - of course, let's reintroduce the 'right to buy'. That will be a real incentive for councils and housing associations to build more houses for the 200,000 Scots on waiting lists!

Tucked away near the end is a proposal to reduce meat inspection. Just what we need, a nice bit of Salmonella. What was that about failed regulation?

Sadly this manifesto is what you would expect. The failed polices of the 1980's revisited on Scotland - albeit dressed up in language that fools no one.

Pensions and saving

2011-04-04T20:21:00.000+01:00

Doing a lot on pensions last week and this with a number of presentations about our pensions campaign. A lot of anger from members outraged about the undermining of their occupational pension scheme.

Today we have the UK Government announcing plans for a simpler state pension of about £140 a week in today’s money in what Steve Webb, the UK pensions minister, described as “the biggest shake-up of the state pension system for generations”. The single pension would be set just above the means-tested pension credit of £137.35, allegedly making it clear that it pays to save for old age. “We have to send out a clear message that you will be better off in retirement if you save,” Mr Webb said.

Well that's not how it looks if you are currently paying into a public service pension scheme. They no longer trust the Government on pensions after unilaterally switching the indexing of benefits from the RPI to the CPI - a move that will cut average benefits by at least 15%. You pay into a scheme all your life and then get the benefits cut. That's just robbery and fatally undermines confidence in saving.

But the biggest impact on pensions and saving will come from the proposed 3.2% increase in contributions. For low paid workers in particular this is simply unaffordable when you are facing a pay freeze and attacks on other terms and conditions. We already have a growing number of staff opting out of pension provision and this will rapidly increase if this plan is implemented.

So not for the first time it would appear that the left hand of government doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Or if you like a good conspiracy - maybe they do!

Paris shows the way

2011-03-31T16:38:00.000+01:00

The City of Paris returned its water services to public ownership after 25 years of privatisation.

They have just released a report saying that the price for drinking water in Paris will go down 8% as a result of cost savings after remunicipalisation. As a true public service provider the city returns the profits from water to the citizens.

It is the first time since 1980 that the price for water has reduced. Over the period 1980 – 2009 the price had gone up each year, totalling a price increase of 480%. Inflation over the same period amounted to 250%. Taking into account that costs for water would have increased the same as inflation it seems that profits for the water companies over the period 1985 – 2009 have doubled.

Well done Paris by returning the profit to the citizens who obviously have been paying too much over the past 25 years of privatised water supply. Those who argue that Scotland's water should be privatised - take note!

Police back filling moves south

2011-03-30T17:56:00.000+01:00

Interesting story in the Guardian that shows that the practice of sacking civilian staff and backfilling their posts with police officers is now happening in England as well as Scotland.

According to a leaked memo from Warwickshire police, officers are being taken out of frontline roles and moved to cover the "back-office" functions of civilian staff who have been made redundant. The decision by Warwickshire police authority – one of the smaller forces in England and Wales with 1,800 officers and staff – to draft up to 150 frontline officers into civilian desk jobs is expected to be followed by other forces grappling with a 20% cut in their Whitehall funding.

In Scotland we are seeing this on an almost daily basis. It is common for memos to staff to say, "as we no longer have civilian post X, police officers Y will now do this task". The so called 1000 extra police officers is being exposed for what it is - a political con-trick.

Good to see an audience member at last night's STV leadership debate asking a question about this. Not surprisingly, Alex Salmond did not respond.

On a related cuts theme have a look at this Martin Rowson cartoon in the Guardian. Absolutely brilliant!

A few daft anarchists couldn't do a fraction of the damage the Con-Dem coalition are doing to the fabric of our society.

Freedom of Information

2011-03-29T23:18:00.000+01:00

Yesterday evening I participated in a round table discussion hosted by Holyrood Magazine and the Freedom of Information Commissioner. The idea was to bring together practitioners, journalists and public authorities to discuss the practice and reform of our freedom of information arrangements in Scotland.

My own experience is that the Freedom of Information Act has changed the culture of information management in public authorities. Far more information is routinely disclosed and there is a much greater willingness to respond promptly to specific requests. Whilst that was generally accepted, journalists felt that requests were still dealt with too slowly and the loopholes in the legislation exploited when the information might lead to an embarrassing story.

One outcome of the legislation has been the creation of freedom of information specialists within public bodies. They have an important role in managing requests, chasing replies and raising awareness within their organisation. There was an interesting discussion around the relationship between the role of the press office and FoI. My own view is that FoI staff generally promote a culture of disclosure rather than simply policing the system.

Finally, we discussed the idea that fees should be introduced for FoI requests. Whilst it is understandable that public bodies should want to maximise income in the current financial circumstances, there was little support for fees. In my view FoI is an essential element of a democratic society and democracy costs. So charging is a no in my book.

A report of the full debate will appear in a future edition of Holyrood Magazine.

Water PFI

2011-03-27T21:38:00.000+01:00

There is an absolutely must read exclusive by Rob Edwards in today's Sunday Herald.

Largely based on the work of Tommy Kane at Strathclyde University, it shows that the taxpayer is spending £4.8bn for sewage plants that cost £600m to build. You might say well that's not new the cost of PFI, and the water schemes in particular, have been widely condemned in the past.

What's new is the scale of performance failure and the concerns that Scottish Water has over compliance risk, including pollution limits. Their performances have been so poor that Scottish Water has imposed financial penalties totalling £7.5m on PFI operators. Scottish Water is now have to spend many more millions putting the problems right.

These are the very same companies that want to take over Scottish Water and run it for profit. Supported by the CBI and the business lobby in Scotland whose best defence is "PFI had not been perfect". You can say that again!

March for the Alternative

2011-03-27T21:13:00.000+01:00

Really amazing turnout yesterday at the TUC march for the alternative in London. Long day for most of the Scots who made the journey. 4:30am for those on our train and back by 1am, but everyone I spoke to felt the effort was worthwhile.

Our train arrived late, but we managed to squeeze into the march and got to Hyde Park in time for the main speeches. I thought all the speakers got it about right. Sharp message with a real focus on the alternative to the Con-Dem coalition policies that are wrecking the country. We then got a drink and as we made our way back to the tube for our train there were still people starting the march. That's nearly five hours later!

On the right hand side of the UNISON Scotland banner were a group of pensioners who decided to come when they were told their day centre opening days are to be cut. On the left a group of young children with their family protesting about cuts in their school. Far from the 'usual suspects' and this is before the really big cuts fully kick in.

I was pleasantly surprised how so many people understood that there is an alternative. In particular cracking down on the tax dodgers. Now we have to keep plugging away at every level until the millionaires in the Cabinet get the message that their tax dodging pals have to pay their fair share too.

Hydro Boys

2011-03-25T16:35:00.000Z

I took part in a debate this week over the hydro nation concept following the Scottish Government consultation. A number of private sector interests arguing against the idea or at best making the case for a market led solution.

There was much misinformation about an earlier hydro nation concept - the establishment of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (NOSHEB) and the post-war construction programme that brought affordable electricity to the Highlands. It is the electricity infrastructure that NOSHEB put in place that made it possible for the Highlands to use information technology today to offset the regions remoteness.

The driving force was Tom Johnston (Wingy Tam as the workers called him), firstly as a politician and then as Chair of the Board. He got the development programme going in wartime despite opposition in Parliament, partly by doing a deal with Churchill, who became an unlikely sponsor of a new nationalised industry. Then he faced up to the Highland landowners, the nimby's of their day, who opposed any development that might increase wages and encourage the workforce off the estates. There was no market solution here, just a visionary politician and good old fashioned state planning.

However, the real story of hydro power in the Highlands is of the people. In the context of recent immigration to the Highlands from Eastern Europe it is less well known that much of the labour force for the early hydro schemes were displaced persons. It is Germans, Poles, Latvians and many others that we have to thank for electricity in the Highlands. These were the 'hydro boys' who at the first big scheme at Sloy worked for half-pay to prove their commitment to their new country.

Many workers paid the ultimate price with their lives. There were no safety laws or independent inspections. Workers were encouraged to cut corners and work long hours through the incentive of bonus schemes. This is another current day analogy, with this week's announcement by the Chancellor that our safety laws are to be downgraded and the HSE budget cut back by 35%. Whilst there are some individual monuments to those who died, there is no monument anywhere in the Highlands to commemorate all the men who gave their skills, their strength and their lives to bring power to the Highlands.

As Emma Wood states in the final chapter of her book 'Hydro Boys'; Tom Johnson would no doubt agree with those of us who reject government confidence in the free market. "Whatever businesses may say, their primary responsibility is to their shareholders and not to the natural environment or future generations. It is for these future generations' sake that we must have a proper energy policy now to regulate the activities of energy producers and consumers alike."

That would be a fitting legacy for the hydro boys.

Budget

2011-03-23T17:45:00.002Z

More dismal news in the UK Budget today. The Chancellor has by passed the chance to scale back the savage public spending cuts, condemning the economy to long-term low growth and high unemployment.

He quietly slipped out the downgraded growth forecast for 2011 from 2.1% to 1.7%. The result of his CSR announcement last October. But don't worry, we are going for growth by tax cuts for big business. Apart from the fact that there is not a scrap of evidence that Corporation Tax cuts do anything for jobs and the economy, most companies don't pay the full amount anyway. They move cash around tax havens aided by our weak tax regime. Our members pay their taxes through PAYE, the rich and big business dodge their responsibilities to society.

See Richard Murphy's blog for the low down (and it is very low) on the Chancellor's latest handout for his tax dodging pals. He points out that large companies can now shift large amounts of their profit offshore and pay just 5.75% on them - a further tax cut for big bsuiness. It also encourages multinational corporations to move functions and employment out of the UK - not bring them to the UK. Which is in itself amazing.

And then we get de-regulation. Including the implementation of Lord Young's report on health and safety. We already know that the HSE is planning to cut unannounced inspections by a third. Put simply, more workers will be injured and die as a result of this decision.

The Chancellor also failed to mention a further piece of bad news - the OBR anticipates an additional 130,000 people will be unemployed in 2012. Youth unemployment is particularly worrying, with nearly a million under-25s out of work – more than 400,000 in excess of six months.

A budget for jobs and growth? I think not.

World Water Day

2011-03-22T17:05:00.000Z

Today is World Water Day when we highlight the United Nations resolution on the Right to Water and Sanitation. On 28 July 2010 the UN General Assembly voted for a resolution which declares that access to water and sanitation services is a fundamental human right.

Although this resolution has no binding authority, it expresses global consensus, with the shameful exceptions of a few EU member states. Governments should dedicate the necessary resources to ensure universal access to water and sanitation at an affordable price. Most governments can afford to do this, yet choose not to. This is a political problem, not a market problem.
The EPSU has repeated its support for the European Pariament declaration to keep the management of water resources not subject to internal market rules. It also states its support for public ownership and management of water and water utilities. Privatisation has induced inequalities and exclusion and has often led to steep water-rate hikes, water-service disruptions and unaccountable management. A recent trend is a return to public management of water services including major cities like Paris.

Water and sanitation services are a fundamental responsibility of governments and must not be outsourced for private profit. Whilst we have a public service in Scotland it is constantly threatened by contractorisation, costly PFI schemes and a well financed business lobby.

Water and sewage are vital public services that our families and communities depend on. Water is life.

Scottish Labour Conference

2011-03-20T23:10:00.000Z

I was at Scottish Labour's Spring conference on Saturday. More a pre-election rally than a real conference, but none the less an important opportunity to fire up the troops for the coming campaign.

Keynote speeches from Ed Miliband and Iain Grey. Ed Miliband in the morning putting the election in a UK context, stressing the importance of a Labour Government in Scotland as a key element of resisting the Tories and their damaging policies.

Iain Grey's speech was well crafted and set out the main themes of the election campaign. He took his audience back to the 80's when the Tories were last in power. Reminding everyone of the lasting damage to Scotland's communities. He pledged his government to do all they can to minimise the damage Thatcher's children will try to do to Scotland today. There may not be much cash, but devolution means that we can resist the dismantling of the NHS, schools and councils that the Tories and the Lib-Dems are planning in England. The focus will be on jobs and the economy, particularly young people, so we don't write off another generation as Thatcher did. He even used the 'S' word twice!

When you take this speech with Alex Salmond's speech to the SNP conference, the main parties in Scotland clearly intend to focus on the Tories. You might think this is fairly strange given their limited electoral strength in Scotland. However, this campaign is looking like a pitch on who is best placed to defend Scotland against the Tories at UK level.

At lunchtime I attended the Labour Yes launch for the AV referendum. UNISON hasn't taken a position on this, rightly recognising that we can't afford to be distracted from our primary campaign against cuts in public services. A lot of Labour activists are torn between the desire to deprive Nick Clegg of the main reason for selling out to the Tories, and their instinctive recognition that AV is probably a better system than First Past The Post. The best argument I heard in favour was that AV forces parties to campaign more positively, because attack politics makes it less likely to attract second preferences. This could lead to a less tribal approach to politics, something I personally would welcome.

Even the Rain

2011-03-19T08:22:00.003Z

Last night I was at a showing of the new film Even the Rain at Glasgow University that UNISON sponsored. The showing was organised by Take One Action, Scotland’s global action cinema project. They aim to link audiences, movies, campaigners and communities to inspire shared responses to issues of global concern. I am a big fan of this approach to campaigning as it takes issues like water privatisation into communities in an entertaining way.

The story of the film revolves around a filmmaker Sebastian (Gael García Bernal) who arrives in Cochabamba, Bolivia to make a film about Colombus’s first voyage to the New World and the subsequent subjugation of the indigenous population. He wanted to focus on the experience of of Spanish monks who opposed the treatment of the natives. His producer Costa (Luis Tosar) has chosen Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, because it makes sense economically. Extras are willing to work long hours for just two dollars a day.

Sebastian casts local man Daniel (Juan Carlos Aduviri) in the role of Hatuey, the Taino chief who led a rebellion against the Spaniards. Daniel is also one of the leaders in the demonstrations against the water price hikes driven by a US water corporation. Intercutting footage of Sebastien’s film with recordings of the actual protests, creates a powerful juxtaposition between the historical and present day events.

After the film we had a short debate on the issues raised by the film. Not surprisingly those who advocate water privatisation in Scotland and elsewhere declined the invitation to debate the issue. More than one billion people worldwide do not have access to basic water and sanitation services. As a consequence a child dies every 15 seconds from diseases related to low water quality.

The UN has declared water as a basic human right but that doesn't stop the water multinationals from profiting from it and exploiting communities across the world. Aided and abetted by institutions like the World Bank, IMF and others. The good news is that communities, like those shown in the film, are fighting back and winning. Even in Europe cities like Paris are returning to a public service model. There is also a strong business funded lobby in Scotland for water privatisation. We should take inspiration from the people of Bolivia and elsewhere when we say our rain is not for sale.

Nordic Horizons

2011-03-17T22:34:00.000Z

I was in Parliament this evening for a Nordic Horizons event. Nordic Horizons promotes discussion about the ‘Nordic Model’ which puts Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and even Iceland at the top of almost every international league table for wellbeing, equality, health and productivity. Tonight’s discussion was titled - Is small beautiful - and if so, how does Scotland manage with the largest local government units in Europe?

The first speaker was from the Swedish municipality of Gotland, an island in the Baltic with a population of around 57,000. They have done some impressive things with renewable energy including wind and biomass that is used to fuel buses and shortly even the ferries. The council set up the energy enterprises and benefits from the income as well as the environmental benefits. This inevitably led to a discussion as to why we don’t do more of this.

Of course councils in Scotland used to own power companies. In fact in the 19th Century councils were given the statutory authority, not only to set up power companies, but even to municipalise existing ones. I suspect today most councils would decide to outsource the profits to a foreign owned energy company.

The Norwegian speaker focused on the role of communes in rural Norway. There are 430 of these although many are under pressure to amalgamate. Again the spirit of municipal enterprise was present in addition to real civic engagement. I particularly liked the story of the local care home manager who was more concerned about local gossip about standards than any regulatory inspection. Real user engagement there!

The general view was that we don’t have ‘local’ government in Scotland. Most Europeans living in Scotland can’t comprehend the idea of councils having a population of hundreds of thousands. The level of democracy in real local councils costs but it also improves the quality of decisions, generates new ideas and engenders a real sense of civic engagement. This is something sadly missing in Scotland, where the debate is how much bigger we can make councils and other public bodies. The narrow managerialism of most of our public leaders’ remains focused on economies of scale rather than revitalising our democracy.

Whilst a case can be made for large city councils, Scotland has more than 100 towns that could be liberated through a new sense of civic pride. That’s the lesson of the Nordic model and one we should seriously consider.

New economic reality?

2011-03-16T22:51:00.000Z

I was speaking at the Holyrood conference 'The New Economic Reality' today in Edinburgh. There was a very good range of speakers for this event with a focus on ideas, rather than a sales pitch from contractors peddling privatisation. An approach all too common at conferences like this.

The Permanent Secretary, Sir Peter Housden kicked off the conference with a broad overview of the future direction for Scotland's public services. He is fairly new in post and therefore it was interesting to get his take on the position in Scotland after running an English department for a number of years. As you would expect there was much about the opportunities as well as the threats. I suspect most frontline staff facing the savage cuts would receive all this with a large degree of scepticism. However, in fairness he appears to have a good grasp of the importance of people in delivering change, rather than simple number crunching, systems etc. A recognition that people come to work to do a good job and a committed workforce can make a difference.

The Auditor General, Robert Black gave us the numbers and the predictable plea for more information to drive change. I am always sceptical about the benefits of this when you see how much staff time can be diverted from service delivery to collate this data.

Much about co-production and user engagement from three different speakers on reshaping public services. There was a helpful recognition that this is what many public service professionals, like social workers, do every day. Plus an understanding that it takes time, effort and resources to develop meaningful engagement and even longer for co-production.

In a session on delivering more with less we had Sue Bruce the new Chief Executive at Edinburgh Council. Sadly, a predictable enthusiasm for alternative delivery models including some woolly talk about social enterprise. Pity she wasn't at the morning session to hear Peter Housden talk about evidence led policy, because she certainly didn't offer any. She wondered why staff seem reluctant to offer innovative ideas. Well if you promote outsourcing it doesn't show much confidence in your staff, so they might not have much confidence in you.

She was followed by an instructive history lesson in public service reform from Eddie Frizzell and an entertaining, if not particularly informative, presentation from Barry Quirk. He has the resplendent title of Local Government Efficiency Champion at SOLACE.

Finally my own contribution on engaging the workforce. I started by questioning what the new economic reality was. With a pay freeze, job cuts, attacks on conditions and pensions at a time when the bankers who caused the mess are paying themselves massive bonuses - please don't tell staff 'we are all in this together'.

I ran through the conventional approaches including outsourcing, shared services and expecting the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces. If the tax dodging accountancy firms and their big corporation clients think the Cayman Islands is such a great place to do business, then why don't they seek public sector contracts there instead of Scotland?

I explained the difference between the market realm and the public realm. The market realm plays by different rules and they don't share our public service service ethos. A new generation of senior public service managers have to relearn the lessons of the 1980's. As one council manager who found this out the hard way said to me recently; "these people are not your friends".

I also pointed out that there are no new ideas - just the old ones rehashed. I recently did a session at a US conference (by video link) and was preceded by a US management consultant extolling the benefits of insourcing! Backed up by case studies of US companies who are abandoning outsourcing for many of the reasons we talk about every day. I was negotiating shared services in the private sector ten years ago and only now are they discovering the real transaction and displacement costs.

Finally, I set out a new approach to public service delivery based on integrated service delivery, as local as practicable. An approach that views delivery from the service users perspective, not top down centralising promoted by many under the guise of economies of scale. An effective change process has leaders who give staff the freedom to design the service they deliver and give them the space to do so with a degree of job security.

Encouragingly, there was a significant degree of consistency from the better speakers on this type of approach. Not quite a consensus yet as old approaches were also in evidence today. But some hope that we can develop a different approach in Scotland that reflects our public service ethos.

Clydebank Remembers

2011-03-15T09:50:00.000Z

Yesterday, survivors and relatives joined dignitaries, MSPs, councillors and church leaders, at a service to remember the 70th anniversary of the Clydebank Blitz in an act of remembrance and forgiveness. The town was flattened on 13/14 March 1941 by the Luftwaffe as they targeted shipyards and munitions factories leaving 528 dead, 617 seriously injured and more than 35,000 homeless. Only seven houses remained untouched. There will also be a minute’s silence today in Clydebank shopping centre.

One of the guests at the service was the Consul General of Germany, Wolfgang Moessinger. This reflects the fact that the Luftwaffe was directed by the fascist regime of Adolf Hitler. A regime that also murdered many thousands of Germans, most appallingly in the concentration camps.

This is not just a history lesson. We have modern day fascists in the form of the BNP and EDL whose members have been easily identified with Nazism through its extreme and provocative activities, associations and publications as well as its active denial of the facts of the Holocaust.

BNP founder John Tyndall showing his true colours

The BNP today likes to portray itself as a simple nationalist party. However, while the BNP has attempted to distance itself from its past it remains a racist party in the European fascist tradition. I can’t recommend it as a good read, but this is clear in the ramblings of the Scottish BNP ‘leader’ Gary Raikes. Recent divisions and expulsions have clearly taken their toll on what always was a tiny organisation. Most of their activity is obviously organised from outside Scotland. For example, the BNP Scotland blog seeks donations for their ‘Assembly’ election campaign. Message to the Fuhrer bunker – that’s Wales not Scotland!

They will no doubt stand candidates in the Scottish elections, not because they expect to be elected, but rather as an opportunity to spread their message of hate through the election free post. This is important because Scotland is not exempt from racism. In a report published just yesterday the EHRCS said there were "record levels" of racially motivated crime recorded in Scotland, with more than 6,200 incidents recorded between 2009 and 2010.

So whilst we remember the tragedy of the Clydebank blitz, let’s make sure that the perverted ideology that caused it doesn’t take root in Scotland.

The case for local government

2011-03-14T13:17:00.000Z

Good to hear some louder voices at the CoSLA conference and in the media this weekend making the case for democratically accountable local government. I was concerned that local government organisations like CoSLA felt that there was no need to state the obvious.

How wrong can they be. With one centralising proposal after another there is a risk that local government could control a tiny proportion of public spending as the national this, that, or the other takes over. Added to that we have all the political parties ruling out increases in the Council Tax, leaving councils no freedom to respond to local need. Other than increasing charges - the most regressive of taxation measures.

James Hunter put it well in his comment piece in the Herald on Saturday: "Scotland may be a small country. But it is an endlessly diverse one - the sort of country in which a thousand flowers could be encouraged to bloom by ministers committed to dispersing power rather than hoarding it."

I note in this week's Third Force News a bizarre proposal to do away with councils altogether. Apparently this would mean one less layer of government and councils would be replaced by community bodies getting together to debate issues. Norway is cited as an example of this. Strange given that Norway has 430 elected local councils and 19 strategic authorities - one more layer of government than us.

I belong to a number of community and voluntary organisations. If I don't like what they are doing I can either work hard internally to change them, time I sadly rarely have, or I resign in protest. I can't resign from having my bins collected and thankfully neither can my neighbours. Rats don't respect our boundaries! Even the uber capitalist Victorians recognised this when they created local government.

Democracy does of course mean much more than electing councils every four or five years. Engagement with community organisations is vital. However, that is no substitute for elected democracy. It may not be perfect, but I want to able to tackle my local councillor and vote him or her out when needed. That's real democracy.

Hutton Report

2011-03-10T09:15:00.000Z

This morning we had sight of the long awaited report by Lord Hutton on public service pension schemes. As expected he is recommending long term structural reform of the schemes that involve more than one in five Scots.

The headline recommendation is a shift from final salary schemes to one related to career average earnings. This is not a problem in principle so long as the overall value of the benefits is not reduced. A key issue is how each year's accrual is indexed. John Hutton is recommending that this should be done by average earnings and this is likely to be a reasonable basis for negotiation. However, we wait to see what the UK Government reaction will be to this proposal given their obsession with the CPI for indexing.

Reform should be on a scheme by scheme basis because the membership varies considerably. Scotland's pension schemes have been the subject of major reform in recent years and already have cost sharing principles built in along with many of the reforms recommended in this report. We would agree with the report's recommendation that there should be stronger governance and member involvement in running pension schemes.

The commitment to honouring in full pensions promises already paid for by scheme members is of course welcome. How this fits with the Con-Dem coalition's decision to index benefits through the CPI rather than the RPI is less clear. Staff have paid into the scheme all their working lives only to find benefits slashed by over 15% when they retire.

Many of the recommendations in the report fall under devolved powers, although the Con-Dem government is using financial levers to pressure Scottish Ministers. Lord Hutton is recommending overarching primary legislation to set a framework. It remains to be seen how restrictive this framework would be and the consequential impact on devolved responsibilities. For example there are no changes proposed in this area in the Scotland Bill.

Lord Hutton is undoubtedly sincere when he states that he wishes to avoid a 'race to the bottom' in pension provision. His report has also done much to dispel the myths around the 'gold plated pensions' promoted by the right wing media and Nick Clegg the Deputy PM.

However, the Chancellor's decision to use Lord Hutton's interim report as cover for contribution increases of 3.2% has fatally undermined his report. The £375m raised from Scottish public service workers will go straight into the Treasury - not the pension schemes. This is little more than a tax on scheme members and will result in further opt-outs from the scheme, placing new burdens on welfare benefits.

I have spent a lot of time talking to members about pensions in recent years. Politicians at all levels should be left in no doubt that public service workers will not tamely accept this daylight robbery of their hard earned benefits.

Hydro Nation

2011-03-09T21:37:00.000Z

Today I submitted our response to the Scottish Government consultation paper Building a Hydro Nation. This consultation sets out a big vision of an expanding role for Scottish Water. Moving into renewable energy, research and international development.

The paper makes it clear that ownership is not a consultation issue. Despite the well financed big business lobby for privatisation the public service model still enjoys widespread public and political support in Scotland. Labour and the SNP understand this - the Tories and the Lib-Dems are stuck in the 1980's with their support for privatisation. This consultation reflects a growing understanding that not only is water and sewerage an essential public service, but that given the global water crisis, it is one of Scotland's greatest assets.

This does not mean that we should cling to the status quo. The water trades unions have published a paper, It's Scotland's Water, that highlights other public service models that demonstrate that a more democratic structure can deliver a more efficient, socially responsible and more accountable public water service. It is in this context that we believe that a new governance model, a water agency, is needed to take forward this vision for Scotland's water.

This approach would have the added benefit of abolishing the expensive nonsense of the economic regulatory framework, including the Water Industry Commission. The leaders of this organisation have actively lobbied against the vision described in Hydro Nation and a new democratically accountable water agency should replace it.

The consultation paper has a strong international vision. This fits in well with the developing worldwide Water Network which aims to strengthen the resistance against privatisation and commercialisation of water. The common theme is to develop more democratic forms of ownership that ensure there is a focus on the issues that matter to the public like leaks, repairs and water quality. Not creating an artificial market that concentrates on profit rather than service. Scotland should be a world leader in that network.

Freedom of Information

2011-03-08T21:45:00.000Z

The Information Commissioner for Scotland, Kevin Dunion today published his annual report.

More than 1000 decisions made since he took up his post have made a huge difference to the culture of secrecy that used to pervade public service. There has been an increasing use of FoI with 73% of public authority respondents reporting that FOI requests had increased in the last year, with 38% stating that they had increased 'significantly'.

Freedom of Information legislation has been vital in improving democratic accountability. It is a key tool for members of the public, journalists and campaign organisations like UNISON. An example of how we use FoI was included as a case study in this year's report. This involved our annual survey of violence in the workplace. The information gathered has helped to develop best practice guidance and better protection in the workplace.

One of the most disappointing recent decisions was the outcome of the Scottish Government consultation on extending the FOI Act. The aim was to cover a range of additional bodies that provide important public services, including the Glasgow Housing Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, private prisons, leisure trusts and PFI/PPP contractors. In January 2011 the Government announced that it would not be taking designation forward, a craven capitulation to business lobbying.

The Commissioner rightly criticised that decision and points that that there is a real risk that we could fall behind other countries when our FoI regime used to be a world leader. Lets hope a new Scottish Government after May will take a different view and build on the excellent work the Commissioner and his staff do.

Police hustings

2011-03-08T21:13:00.000Z

First of our election hustings yesterday at the police staffs seminar. The format is an introductory speech from each of the party justice spokespersons, followed by questions from our members.

A good turnout from the main political parties with the exception of the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill who cried off on the grounds that the event was 'political'. And the Justice Secretary is not 'political'? I suspect he was more concerned that his cosmetic '1000 police officers' might come under a bit of scrutiny from staff who understand only too well what this really means. Central Scotland MSP Christina McKelvie, stood in for him and did her best. Christina is a Unison member with a background in social work and, whilst not on her subject, had at least done her homework. More than can be said for the Justice Secretary!

The audience were also pretty sceptical about the national police force, supported by Labour and the SNP. In particular about the claimed savings, a point Richard Baker struggled with. He was on stronger ground with Labour's position on police staffs generally and privatisation. The new Tory justice lead, John Lamont, clearly had a crash course in policing following Bill Aitken's resignation, but his support for privatisation went down like a lead balloon following the Group 4 nonsense a couple of weeks ago.

Lib-Dem, Robert Brown was on stronger ground with his support for localism, although as the party jointly responsible for the cuts he had some convincing to do. Patrick Harvie played well with an audience that are perhaps not a natural fit for the Greens.

The questions from the floor were excellent, often put over with a real passion from staff who are not normally at the forefront of UNISON campaigns. Police staffs have a wide range of concerns and they have not been slow in recent months in getting stuck into politicians. So candidates in the election have been warned. Police staffs will be coming to a hustings near you!

Preventative Spending

2011-03-05T14:27:00.000Z

Yesterday I participated in a seminar in Parliament organised by the Finance Committee on preventative spending. They produced an innovative report that identified investment in public services that would result in long term savings and tackle some of Scotland's most intractable social problems.

The focus was on early years interventions. Suzanne Zeedyk from Dundee University's Department of Neuro Science explained how 90% of brain mass is determined by age 3. The brain is driven by emotions not behaviours therefore how we relate to babies is crucial to child development. Alan Sinclair from the Work Foundation reinforced this message by pointing out that a series of apparently intractable problems are actually all the same. It's how we bring up babies.

This means that preventative spending on early years will pay big dividends in the medium to long term. Intensive support to teenage mums, family centres, health visitors and continuity in fostering and adoption are all crucial. There is strong evidence from Finland and Holland to show that this approach works. In those countries there is cross party support for this approach. Depressingly, in the USA the Republicans want to cut nutritional subsidies to babies.

The challenge of course is how you join up services to focus scarce resources on this key group. Not to mention shifting cash from existing services. My only reservation about the debate is that there was insufficient emphasis on the importance of reducing inequality. Poor family relationships are often driven by poverty. It is not an accident that more equal societies do better on every measure.

Health Board Elections

2011-03-03T08:42:00.000Z

Excitement in some papers yesterday because the pilots for direct elections to health boards cost £1.6m. 'Shocking', say the usual suspects, this could have paid for 64 nurses.

Sorry, but no it wouldn't. You would have hoped that the difference between recurring and non-recurring expenditure would have been understood, at least by serious health organisations. However, the BMA and RCN always opposed the extension of democracy to the NHS, so this was predictable enough. Their evidence to Parliament when the Bill went through reflected a very top down, professionals knows best, attitude to patient involvement.

I think it would be fair to say that I might not always agree with the Cabinet Secretary for Health, but on this one she got it right when she said:

“I believe this represents good value for the kind of democracy that puts people at the heart of the NHS. It is a reasonable price to pay for making sure local communities are at the heart of local decision-making."

Yes of course the NHS is facing cuts but that is not an excuse to abolish democracy. In fact when difficult decisions have to be taken we need more democracy, not less. The Scottish Parliament elections cost £40m to administer. Parliament correctly decided to separate council elections from the parliamentary elections for sound democratic reasons, despite the additional cost.

It would of course be much cheaper to have a system of regional governors for local government or even a High Commissioner for Scotland. However, I haven't seen a Herald Editorial calling for that in these straightened times. Democracy is rarely cheap but it is the bedrock of our way of life. One third of Scottish expenditure goes to NHS Scotland. Sums of that magnitude deserve democratic oversight.

Pensions

2011-03-01T22:23:00.000Z

Just back from two days in London looking at our pensions campaign. Useful to get a UK perspective as most of the attacks on our members pensions come from the UK Government.

The big one is the plan to increase pension contributions by 3.2%, grabbing £2.8bn, not for pension funds but for the Treasury. For Scotland this means around £375m being raided from the Scottish Government budget. This includes £140m from local government and further £140m from health. Then we have the indexing switch from RPI to CPI that will take another 15% off benefits. As a member about to retire put it to me today, "you pay into a pension fund all your working life only to have the government steal the benefits at retirement". That's exactly what it is - robbery.

Another interesting pension story today was the publication of PCS's monthly index showing the funding position of all UK private sector defined benefit schemes. This revealed an improvement in fund deficits to £64bn as at February this year from £144bn in February last year. The FTSE100 firms saw their combined scheme deficit also improve from £58bn at the end of February last year to £32bn this year, while the FTSE350 deficit also improved from £68bn to £38bn over the same period. This shows that you need to take a long term view of pension investments and not panic everytime the market takes a dive.

However, PCS have also highlighted "very difficult" times for Defined Benefit schemes - particularly with tax changes expected in April and the recent government proposals on contracting-out, which represent a highly penal tax on DB schemes.

It seems that the Con-Dem coalition is determined to close down quality pension provision, leaving us all in poverty during retirement.

Managed transitions?

2011-02-25T18:22:00.000Z

I was speaking at an APSE seminar at Hampden today entitled Financial Armageddon or Managed Transition. There were two thoughtful overview presentations from The Improvement Service and APSE, followed by three case studies from Scottish local authorities. There was a common understanding that increasing demands on services were as big a threat to council finances as the cuts in funding allocations.

After setting out our different starting point over the cuts, I then dealt with some of the main strategies councils are using to address the financial crisis. In particular a plea to examine much more carefully the claims made by management consultants about savings from outsourcing. We have a new generation of senior council officials who weren't around when we had CCT and I have seen a number of reports to councils that are fantastically naive. There is a real need to make better use of the APSE network data and understand contracting models.

My main pitch was to consider a new approach to service delivery. At a strategic level this should be based on local integrated services within councils; strengthening local democracy through real user involvement. Services should be designed from the bottom up, rejecting the public service factory approach of top down shared services and artificial front office/back office splits. This approach gives staff the freedom to design the service around the principle that most user demand is dealt with locally, first time.

This needs to be underpinned by an effective change process. Forget heroic leadership; what we need are co-operative models of leadership that recognises the complexity of public service provision. This needs a new approach to staff development and training that puts a premium on the public service ethos, rather than attempting to copy business models devised for the market realm. I set out examples of partnership models that actually work and deliver sustainable change. However, most importantly this approach has to be underpinned by an organisational change agreement that provides job security. This gives staff the space and confidence to innovate.

I ended by urging councillors and chief officials to shout for local government. There is a real risk that if many of the current reorganisation proposals are implemented, very few services could be left under local democratic control. There are alternative models of integrated local service delivery, but all of us who care about local democratic accountability need to speak up for them with a common vision and a coherent voice.

Big Society - Good Society

2011-02-23T20:59:00.000Z

I took part in a debate today at the annual voluntary sector event, The Gathering, entitled The Big Society, the Good Society – what future for civil society in Scotland.

My first reaction to David Cameron’s speech on the Big Society was actually quite positive. After all here was a Tory leader using the ‘S’ word when his mentor Margaret Thatcher famously said “I don’t believe in society. There is no such thing, only individual people, and their families”. I quote it in full because some on the right now try and argue she didn’t actually say this.

Sadly my positivity didn’t last long when the Tories came to power. The Big Society quickly became a cloak for the ideological dismantling of the state. Cuts that undermine the voluntary sector as much as public sector and close many of the facilities that are the bedrock of local communities.

I also have a problem with the politics of the Big Society. It claims to support fairness but ignores the economic causes of unfairness. It favours democracy but offers no constitutional reform and it talks about mutualism but remains committed to market mechanisms. In total, it seems to add up to little more than a call for volunteering. It is not surprising that polls show people don’t understand the concept or are sceptical.

So what does this mean for civil society in Scotland? Of course almost all of the actual measures don’t apply in Scotland, but the concept? I argued that we may ditch the Big Society brand, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate the concept of society.

I work for a big voluntary organisation. I believe in community and play some part in it by belonging to national and local organisations that reflect issues of concern and interest to me - from climate change to real ale. Sometimes this is just membership support and at other times I take action. That can include practical action including intervening when an elderly neighbour was harassed or getting together with other residents to stop a developer building flats on my local park. I therefore believe in community action, but where do you draw the line between community action and the role of the state?

When my mother comes out of hospital and needs social care we look to support from her GP and Social Work. We want a service that meets her needs but we don’t want the hassle of a budget or a ‘choice’ of providers through direct payments. Although I accept that this may be appropriate for others. Do I want my local library run by volunteers? Probably not. I suspect the worthy committee might want to make decisions on which books to buy that are better left to professional librarians, with their independent standards and access to a network of library services.

You could argue that the solution to that dilemma is with me to participate. But like many people in this over worked society, my time is limited. By the time I get home, eat and have some quality family time, there is little left over. This is reflected in the Big Society polling evidence. When the Big Society is explained people are generally fine with the concept. But when asked if they are prepared to do more they indicate that this is the role of the state. Of course they are less enthusiastic about extra taxation, a paradox often described as Scandinavian services on US tax rates.

There are other paradoxes. We live in an amazing society with new technology, consumer access, greater wealth overall and more tolerance of diversity. On the other hand we have grotesque inequality, poor mental health, rising alcoholism and drug addition. So for me the Good Society is about a much more fundamental change than who runs my local care home or library, important though I think that is. It’s about tackling poverty, the work life balance, improving children’s life chances, protecting our environment and securing the opportunities, as well as meeting the challenges, of an aging population.

Above all it’s about inequality. More equal societies do better on every count. That’s the real ‘Good Society’ and frankly we can’t expect a millionaire Prime Minister, in hock to the hedge fund managers for his party funding, for action on that!

Violence in the workplace

2011-02-22T22:32:00.000Z

A year ago I spoke at the launch of a new guide Managing Occupational Violence and Aggression in the Workplace. This is aimed primarily at local government and was the culmination of over a year's work by a band of council safety managers and myself in conjunction with the Centre for Healthy Working Lives. Today we met in Glasgow to review progress.

There has been an increase in violent incidents in Scottish local government last year. That is not necessarily a reflection on the policy and it may demonstrate better recording as a result of new systems and greater awareness. However, in UNISON's annual survey we asked councils what action they had taken in light of the new guidance. The discouraging answer was, not a lot. In fact most councils couldn't identify any action at all. This is reflected in other responses to the survey. Whilst there had been some real improvements in a small number of councils, the usual suspects had all the same problems of poor recording and evaluation.

There is a real concern that as the cuts in local government bite deeper, there is likely to be an increase in user frustration that could lead to even more violent incidents. The HSE cuts means that we can't count on them to be monitoring poor practice. So it is up to our Safety Committee's to raise the issue and for CoSLA and others to promote best practice.

It was recognised at the meeting that at the very least you would have expected is a review of existing policies and systems. This is something that we will focus on in this year's survey. Naming and shaming will be the approach, so the councils concerned have been warned!

CBI on public services

2011-02-21T13:04:00.000Z

No one ever accused the CBI of subtlety. Their latest effort to rustle up work for their members is a call for private companies to have a ‘right to bid’ to deliver public services. This is a retro policy in so far as we have done all this before. Compulsory Competititive Tendering (CCT) and market testing was the 1980's version of this. That's why we have described this as a "Thatcherite Wonderland".

The result was a complex chain of contractual relationships with huge costs for public services. This proposal goes even further than CCT, requiring an army of people to manage it, taking staffing resources away from delivering frontline services.

The evidence on privatisation, outsourcing and shared services is not that they are cheaper and better run – quite the opposite. We have seen time and time again the huge failures of privatisation. A perfect example is the outsourcing of hospital cleaning which resulted in the number of cleaners being cut in half and hospital infections rising as a result.

Last week I highlighted the evidence of G4S work in England. No wonder they wanted to highlight South Wales and not Staffordshire where the contract now costs the force three times more. In November last year, a leaked report revealed that British Telecom was overcharging Liverpool City Council by £10 million a year for outsourced services. It highlighted that the council could save £23 million a year by cancelling the contract for IT services and a call-centre operation, and taking the work in-house.

Integrated public service delivery is by far the best way to manage essential services. Harking back to the failures of the 80's is a pretty poor contribution to public service reform.

Low carbon energy

2011-02-18T17:11:00.000Z

Today I have finalised UNISON Scotland's submission to the Scottish Government's consultation, Securing the Benefits of Scotland’s Next Energy Revolution.

We would agree that Scotland’s geographical advantages open up significant economic prospects in the field of low carbon and renewable energy. There is a welcome commitment that Scotland should consolidate its position as a net energy exporter. I can recall the time when SNP policy was being guided by an academic who essentially argued for a ‘Scotland only’ energy generation policy.

There does need to be some caution against raising expectations of the scale of economic benefit. Successive governments and their agencies have published predictions on job creation that have rarely been realised.

Whilst low carbon energy should undoubtedly be the focus of a Scottish energy strategy it is important that the government does not lose sight of the importance of a balanced energy policy if Scotland’s security of supply is to be secured, let alone our export potential. North Sea oil and gas production in Scotland is reducing at the same time as our coal and nuclear electricity generating plants are approaching the end of their economic life. Within ten years Scotland will lose around 30% of its electricity generating capacity from large plants and within twenty five years we are likely to lose all our capacity from these facilities. UNISON Scotland holds the view (see our Scottish energy strategy) that all energy sources need to be considered as part of that energy mix and we cannot exclusively rely on renewables.

Much of this consultation paper, unsurprisingly from an SNP government, focuses on getting energy revenues and further powers from the UK Government. Scotland is part of the UK and revenue and expenditure has to be seen in that context. Whilst it would be beneficial to Scotland to extract one or more favourable tax streams, we need to recognise that these are part of a larger and more complex tax and spend environment. Arguments about what was generated in ‘Scotland’s waters’ means little in this UK context and the obvious political message in this paper undermines the importance of developing a coherent energy policy.

Having said that UNISON Scotland supports the devolution of energy policy and can therefore support many of the proposals in the paper. Greater control of the Crown Estates and a register of community benefit in particular. Sadly, there is no mention of the role of local government and planning functions are under further pressure as a result of spending cuts.

We have common ground on the issue of transmission charging for electricity. The Ofgem charging system results in generators from Scotland and Northern England paying the highest grid charges in the UK. Generators in the North of Scotland pay £21.58 per Kh compared to a subsidy of £6.90 per Kh in London. We support the ‘postage stamp’ principle of a flat rate for all generators and hope the Ofgem obsession with competition policy will not block this solution in the TRANSMIT review.

Overall, putting the obvious political messages to one side, there are positive proposals in this paper. This is one of many Scottish Government initiatives on energy policy and perhaps now is the time to consider some greater coordination. The Royal Society of Edinburgh produced a thoughtful report on a Scottish energy strategy in 2006 and they recommended such an approach. An incoming administration would do well to take a second look at their proposals.

National Police Force

2011-02-17T17:00:00.000Z

The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on the future policing of Scotland, with a strong steer that they favour a national police force.

The ministerial foreword has the usual political spin about 1000 extra officers, with no mention of Police staffs who deliver a wide range of essential services. Sadly, this is the Cabinet Secretary yet again giving the appearance that he is rooted in 1970's policing.

The current structure of police boards is simply an historical legacy from the last local government reorganisation with huge differences in geography and population. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to look at the structure - but is a national force the way ahead?

The main driver is clearly cost savings, "to ensure that resources are focused where they matter – on frontline policing and the needs of communities", to quote the Cabinet Secretary. Fine rhetoric, but the claimed savings have been questioned by a broad group of people who understand policing, 'fanciful' by others. The cost of change will be huge and the transactional costs of running national systems will be significant.

Another driver is national accountability. Ministers get lots of grief, but have limited levers to do anything about the issues they have to answer to Parliament for. In my experience most ministers in any government start their term of office in favour of decentralisation and end up wanting to run the service themselves. And here is the big concern. How do you run a national police force without political control over operational issues? There are some international models, but they don't easily fit into our constitutional culture.

There is a huge emphasis in the consultation on strengthening local accountability. We even had the Cabinet Secretary in Arran yesterday claiming this was a model of local policing the rest Scotland should follow. Now Arran is a lovely place, but hardly representative of Scotland as a whole. Those of us who have worked with the police for many years would recognise a highly centralised, hierarchical management culture. Not one that has much time for local flexibility of the type envisaged in the consultation paper. Any councillor will tell you that their community police officer is great, but they are always being redeployed elsewhere by direction from senior officers.

The other police management culture is what I would describe as 'initiativeitus'. If knife crime goes up then the managerial reaction is to set up an 'initiative', staffed by a special team that often draws officers and staff from community policing. A similar problem is the performance management systems. Lots of data collection and targets that every police officer and staff knows how to game with. It is frankly hard to see how this ingrained management culture is going to allow the space for local accountability.

Proposals for a national police force, or for that matter a national fire and rescue service, need to be viewed in the context of the wider review of public service delivery. It is hard to see how the vertical integration of a single service fits in with the need for integration at local level to achieve common outcomes. Reducing crime is not the sole preserve of the police, it requires community action joining up a range of services.

I am not offering any conclusions either way, but at this stage there are some big difficult questions for the supporters of a national force to answer.

Police custody privatisation

2011-02-15T19:24:00.001Z

A story in today's Scotsman newspaper about the privatisation of police custody cells has attracted a lot of interest. In essence the private security firm, Group 4, are making a pitch to two unnamed police boards to privatise police functions.

As I have said in several TV and radio interviews, this has to be one of the craziest ideas dreamt up in the desperate attempt by some Chief Constables to save cash. Why?

Firstly, the offer is to help police boards with their 'aging estate'. This is code for a Private Finance Initiative type deal that we have plenty of experience of in Scotland. It involves paying private contractors several times over for an asset that could be purchased at a fraction of the price using conventional borrowing. Group 4 are experts at lining their pockets from this sort of deal, including an annual profit of £417m on their private prisons.

Secondly, Group4 have such a poor reputation in England that it is no surprise that they are making a pitch in Scotland. This is the company that ran the Campsfield Detention Centre, the scene of suicides and violence before the inmates burnt it down. Then there is Yarlswood, that suffered a major fire costing £millions after Group4 ignored Fire Brigade advice on installing a proper sprinkler system. Only last week the Guardian ran a story on Group4's management of deportation flights staffed by untrained and unaccredited staff. A senior staff source described this as 'playing Russian roulette with detainees lives'. I could go on but you get the picture.

The question to be posed is who would want their son or daughter in the hands of this company. Police custody is a serious business and it should be staffed by properly trained custody staff. It's no place to cut corners for private profit.

Update

One of the police forces in England that tried this is Staffordshire. As a result of an FoI request from the UNISON police branch we now know that the service costs three times more than the original cost of the in-house provision. Staffordshire Police resisted the FoI request and the branch had to appeal. Hardly surprising that they wanted to keep these numbers quiet!

In defence of demographic change

2011-02-14T13:32:00.001Z

Much is being written about the demographic time bomb and the impact it will have on the future delivery of public services. I would hope to be part of that demographic change although the life expectancy of males in my family doesn't bode well on that score. West of Scotland genes obviously run deep! Perhaps it was this that made me look a little deeper behind the numbers.

The headline figures are indeed stark with the IBR identifying a 40% potential increase in age related spending by 2057. However, we should view this figure with some caution. In particular other public spending will fall as result of the same demographics, reducing the net increase to around 10%. Then we should challenge the assumption that the disability ratio does not improve. In other words there is some evidence that we may be getting older, but we are also getting healthier and these may offset each other. For more on this read Remeasuring Aging by Warren Sanderson in Science magazine (September 2010).

My other concern is that demographic change is consistently portrayed as a crisis. I reflected on this after reading the January Holyrood Magazine supplement on older people. This used a particularly negative, and typically barking, Adam Smith Institute report on demographic change, followed by lots of articles on 'the crisis'.

Even if the headline statistics are true I can still see some positives from demographic change. Better health and wellbeing should be something to be welcomed, along with more economically active older people contributing to the economy and supporting their families. Informal care is just one example. Older people are also the core of the many local organisations that are at the centre of our communities. They bring not just their time, but a wealth of experience. In this context we should not treat older people simply as an item on a balance sheet.

Many of these benefits depend on better health in old age. Tom Kirkwood at Newcastle University's Institute for Ageing has done a lot on this. He highlights the importance of work design during working life and in particular the level of work autonomy. His emphasis on income equality reflects the Spirit Level (Wilkinson and Pickett) analysis, including the importance of better education. In addition he focuses on social cohesion using the example of the impact on the health of Russian citizens after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

All of this highlights the importance of us having a comprehensive older peoples strategy, including preventative spending, not just a care strategy. I have spent this morning drafting a submission to the Expert Panel on Scottish Labour's plan for a National Care Service. Plenty of questions for them to consider as there is with the Scottish Government's similar lead commissioning model. As yet we are not convinced that major organisational change is the right approach, but the debate is justified.

All we need to remember is that demographic change may not be as big a crisis as it at first appears and it could have some positives as well.

Keir Hardie Society

2011-02-12T18:31:00.000Z

It was the second meeting of the Kier Hardie Society today. The aim of the society is to keep alive the ideas and promote the life and work of Keir Hardie the founder of the Labour Party. Note, this is about the ideas as well as the history.

The meeting was held in Cumnock where Hardie lived for most of his life. We started with a business meeting in the Town Hall where there is a fine bust of the great man sculpted by Benno Schotz. It was well attended and there is plenty of interest in the project, not only in Scotland, but around the world. We then visited the Baird Institute with its Hardie Room full of memorabilia and a fine collection of photographs maintained by the staff of East Ayrshire Council.

A short walk from there is the Congregational Church where Hardie preached occasionally before falling out with the church deacons. Then along the road to Hardie's home, Lochnorris House. Now owned by a former Nalgo Branch Secretary I worked with when I first came to Scotland. Finally, the family graveside in the old cemetery.

The weather was kind to us and it was an enjoyable day. A range of activities are being planned to take the society forward over the next year. If you would like to join the Society the Acting Secretary is Richard Leonard at the GMB and the candidate for this seat in the May elections. The ideas and heritage of Keir Hardie couldn't be in safer hands.

Lochnorris House today.