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.
Friday, 25 February 2011
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Big Society - Good Society
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!
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!
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Violence in the workplace
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!
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!
Monday, 21 February 2011
CBI on public services
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.
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.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Low carbon energy
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.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
National Police Force
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.
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.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Police custody privatisation
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)