I was giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee today on the budget.
Police boards face a real terms cut of at least six per cent and, as the Scottish Government say police numbers have to be maintained, the cuts will fall almost entirely on police (civilian) staff. Boards have correctly reported that, as a consequence, they will have to backfill civilian posts with police officers.
Police staff deliver a wide range of routine, complex and specialised functions that are central to modern day police forces, while allowing uniformed officers to concentrate on operational policing duties. Maintaining an additional 1,000 police officers in this budget is a purely cosmetic political exercise. In practice, even more police officers will be taken off the street to perform tasks they are unsuited or unqualified to do - at a huge additional cost to the taxpayer.
It would be a legitimate political objective to require 1000 additional operational staff on the street. But just to target police officers is economic madness.
Many forces in Scotland are already way behind in the efficient deployment of police staffs. In England, 39% of police personnel are civilians (32% excluding PCSOs), while in Scotland it has fallen to 26.5%. The best forces in Scotland have modernised to these levels: Dumfries & Galloway has 33% while outdated Strathclyde can only manage 25%. This means that efficient forces like Dumfries & Galloway will be dragged down to the levels of the worst; like Strathclyde who have large numbers of police officers behind a desk rather than fighting crime.
Last week in evidence to the Committee the Police Federation attacked the growth in HR staff. Well I would agree, in part. In Strathclyde Police the HR department used to have 6 police officers, now they have 13, not one of which has an HR qualification. The same force has 125 police officers in the control room. In the best forces all the control room staff are civilians trained to deliver this role.
Focusing cuts on police staffs will have serious implications for policing across Scotland and it is vital that we protect the ability to deliver our frontline services, rather than score expensive political points.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Friday, 26 November 2010
Protection of Workers Bill
The Scottish Parliament's Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee (EET) announced today that they will recommend to the Parliament that the general principles of the Protection of Workers Bill are not agreed to. This was a majority decision led by SNP, Tory and Liberal-Democrat MSPs with Labour MSPs supporting the Bill.
While the committee agreed with the Bill that ensuring protection of workers providing a service to the public is essential, and that something should be done now to tackle the problem of assault on workers and deter violence, most MSPs said this can be done without additional legislation.
My initial media response was that nearly 30,000 public service workers subjected to recorded violent incidents last year will today feel badly let down by the majority of MSPs on the committee who reached this decision. They will be joined by many thousands of other workers subjected to violence in the workplace who need Parliament to take action to protect them. UNISON has always accepted that legislation is only part of the solution. But to argue that the current criminal law is adequate, when the prosecution authorities don’t even keep statistics, is a less than adequate response.
We welcome the recommendations urging the prosecution authorities to take this issue more seriously, introduce new guidelines and to collect proper data. However, this has been identified as an issue over many years and little has happened. Meanwhile every year more workers are assaulted.
We will obviously have to work harder to persuade MSP’s to reject this recommendation and approve the general principles of the Bill when it is debated in the chamber early next year.
While the committee agreed with the Bill that ensuring protection of workers providing a service to the public is essential, and that something should be done now to tackle the problem of assault on workers and deter violence, most MSPs said this can be done without additional legislation.
My initial media response was that nearly 30,000 public service workers subjected to recorded violent incidents last year will today feel badly let down by the majority of MSPs on the committee who reached this decision. They will be joined by many thousands of other workers subjected to violence in the workplace who need Parliament to take action to protect them. UNISON has always accepted that legislation is only part of the solution. But to argue that the current criminal law is adequate, when the prosecution authorities don’t even keep statistics, is a less than adequate response.
We welcome the recommendations urging the prosecution authorities to take this issue more seriously, introduce new guidelines and to collect proper data. However, this has been identified as an issue over many years and little has happened. Meanwhile every year more workers are assaulted.
We will obviously have to work harder to persuade MSP’s to reject this recommendation and approve the general principles of the Bill when it is debated in the chamber early next year.
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Tax Row and the LIT
Parliament yesterday was completely dominated by the tax row as MSPs lined up to condemn John Swinney for not informing Parliament that tax-system payments had been withheld from HMRC. This makes the Scottish Variable Rate (SVR) of Income Tax uncollectable, even if anyone wanted to.
Let me say, that in my book, John Swinney is the most competent minister in the Cabinet. Everyone, especially UNISON, give finance ministers a hard time even when times are good. John Swinney has the least enviable job in government at the present time, coupled with a huge portfolio of responsibilities - the minister for everything as he is known. Despite this he is a fair person to do business with, a skilled debater and I would certainly not question his integrity. On this occasion his defence that the money could have been used better, simply missed the point, and I think he realised that by the end of the debate. This is Parliament's power and it is not for any government, especially a minority one, to take away.
But there is another point arising out of this political storm that hasn't been given any coverage. Whilst the Scottish Government may have had no intention of using the SVR, they did tell us that they wanted a Local Income Tax. More than that, they spent a lot of money working up their plans, issuing consultation papers and the like. A Local Income Tax would also need an up to date database of Scottish tax payers, a point we made during the consultation. I was always sceptical about the Government's real commitment to this change in local taxation. It always looked more like a political strategy to attack Labour over an unpopular tax. Now we know that they had no real intention to introduce a Local Income Tax.
On the subject of the Council Tax I would recommend reading Professor David Bell's paper to the Finance committee on the budget and in particular the section (p10+) on who benefits from the Council Tax freeze. He makes the point that the freeze is neither fair or supports economic growth. A point reinforced yesterday when the Irish Government introduced a property tax for the first time. UNISON has always argued for a basket of taxation and that if we didn't have a property tax, we would probably have to invent one. Well the Irish have just found that out.
David Bell's recommendation is "that the Finance Committee might consider whether the benefits of the council tax freeze outweigh its costs in terms of the services not delivered by local government or by other public bodies due to lack of funding." Absolutely spot on.
Let me say, that in my book, John Swinney is the most competent minister in the Cabinet. Everyone, especially UNISON, give finance ministers a hard time even when times are good. John Swinney has the least enviable job in government at the present time, coupled with a huge portfolio of responsibilities - the minister for everything as he is known. Despite this he is a fair person to do business with, a skilled debater and I would certainly not question his integrity. On this occasion his defence that the money could have been used better, simply missed the point, and I think he realised that by the end of the debate. This is Parliament's power and it is not for any government, especially a minority one, to take away.
But there is another point arising out of this political storm that hasn't been given any coverage. Whilst the Scottish Government may have had no intention of using the SVR, they did tell us that they wanted a Local Income Tax. More than that, they spent a lot of money working up their plans, issuing consultation papers and the like. A Local Income Tax would also need an up to date database of Scottish tax payers, a point we made during the consultation. I was always sceptical about the Government's real commitment to this change in local taxation. It always looked more like a political strategy to attack Labour over an unpopular tax. Now we know that they had no real intention to introduce a Local Income Tax.
On the subject of the Council Tax I would recommend reading Professor David Bell's paper to the Finance committee on the budget and in particular the section (p10+) on who benefits from the Council Tax freeze. He makes the point that the freeze is neither fair or supports economic growth. A point reinforced yesterday when the Irish Government introduced a property tax for the first time. UNISON has always argued for a basket of taxation and that if we didn't have a property tax, we would probably have to invent one. Well the Irish have just found that out.
David Bell's recommendation is "that the Finance Committee might consider whether the benefits of the council tax freeze outweigh its costs in terms of the services not delivered by local government or by other public bodies due to lack of funding." Absolutely spot on.
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
TU Week - Green Workplaces
This is Trade Union Week in the Scottish Parliament, an opportunity to showcase some of the work of the movement in Scotland and discuss current issues with MSPs.
I was speaking at a lunchtime meeting on green workplaces chaired by Patrick Harvie MSP. I was able to highlight the work UNISON has been doing to promote green workplaces in Scotland. This includes a successful Climate Change Fund bid to develop green workplaces in South Lanarkshire Council. The project has only just started but there has been a good response from members. Thirty have already volunteered to become Green Champions. The strength of workplace greening is that it is much more likely to achieve the culture change we need than top down initiatives driven by employers. They should also transfer what they do into the home – a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
This led on to a discussion about what employers and government can do. The Scottish Government is consulting over statutory guidance to public bodies on how they should meet their public duty obligations under the Climate Change (S) Act. The current draft guidance is a good example of a traditional top down leadership model that rarely succeeds in making real change. At best it will be another tick box policy, or a plaque on the wall. In their negotiations over this year’s local government budget, CoSLA even sought to have their climate change obligations suspended. No real surprise, as they have sought to water down the commitment at every stage in the Bill’s progress. But it does indicate how far we still need to go to tackle climate change in Scotland.
I was speaking at a lunchtime meeting on green workplaces chaired by Patrick Harvie MSP. I was able to highlight the work UNISON has been doing to promote green workplaces in Scotland. This includes a successful Climate Change Fund bid to develop green workplaces in South Lanarkshire Council. The project has only just started but there has been a good response from members. Thirty have already volunteered to become Green Champions. The strength of workplace greening is that it is much more likely to achieve the culture change we need than top down initiatives driven by employers. They should also transfer what they do into the home – a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
This led on to a discussion about what employers and government can do. The Scottish Government is consulting over statutory guidance to public bodies on how they should meet their public duty obligations under the Climate Change (S) Act. The current draft guidance is a good example of a traditional top down leadership model that rarely succeeds in making real change. At best it will be another tick box policy, or a plaque on the wall. In their negotiations over this year’s local government budget, CoSLA even sought to have their climate change obligations suspended. No real surprise, as they have sought to water down the commitment at every stage in the Bill’s progress. But it does indicate how far we still need to go to tackle climate change in Scotland.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Scottish Budget Briefing
Published today my more detailed briefing and commentary on the Scottish Government's spending plans and draft budget for 2011-12.
Having now worked my way through all 214 pages of the plan and most of the additional documents, my conclusions remain pretty much as I set out on the day. A poor hand dealt by the UK Government - but some poor choices made by John Swinney.
The local government settlement is without doubt the worst piece of politics. We loudly applauded the Scottish Government for reducing ring fencing. However, they have now effectively returned to that approach and taken away any vestige of respect for local democracy. All because they think the Council Tax freeze is a political winner next year. Well no one likes to pay tax, but people understand that local services have to be paid for. This particular tax cut is also fundamentally unfair, as it favours the wealthiest home owners at the expense of the rest, who are paying increased charges for services.
Then we have the wasteful expenditure. Police officer numbers maintained on paper, but in practice they will be pushing a desk, not patrolling our streets. Teachers doing the job of sacked classroom assistants and a new bonanza for management consultants. Then we have the return of PFI. The most expensive form of borrowing possible and another cash cow for the banks who got us into this mess.
As expected there were some nasty surprises in the detail. A number of public bodies have pretty substantial cuts, well above the average, with no justification in the text. SEPA and Skills Development Scotland to name just two. Plenty of rhetoric about the low carbon economy, yet the energy budget gets a big cut.
None of this should distract from the fact that the UK Con-Dem coalition are cutting spending too far, too fast, at a time when economic recovery remains fragile. However, within these constraints, the Scottish Government has made some poor decisions in this draft budget.
Having now worked my way through all 214 pages of the plan and most of the additional documents, my conclusions remain pretty much as I set out on the day. A poor hand dealt by the UK Government - but some poor choices made by John Swinney.
The local government settlement is without doubt the worst piece of politics. We loudly applauded the Scottish Government for reducing ring fencing. However, they have now effectively returned to that approach and taken away any vestige of respect for local democracy. All because they think the Council Tax freeze is a political winner next year. Well no one likes to pay tax, but people understand that local services have to be paid for. This particular tax cut is also fundamentally unfair, as it favours the wealthiest home owners at the expense of the rest, who are paying increased charges for services.
Then we have the wasteful expenditure. Police officer numbers maintained on paper, but in practice they will be pushing a desk, not patrolling our streets. Teachers doing the job of sacked classroom assistants and a new bonanza for management consultants. Then we have the return of PFI. The most expensive form of borrowing possible and another cash cow for the banks who got us into this mess.
As expected there were some nasty surprises in the detail. A number of public bodies have pretty substantial cuts, well above the average, with no justification in the text. SEPA and Skills Development Scotland to name just two. Plenty of rhetoric about the low carbon economy, yet the energy budget gets a big cut.
None of this should distract from the fact that the UK Con-Dem coalition are cutting spending too far, too fast, at a time when economic recovery remains fragile. However, within these constraints, the Scottish Government has made some poor decisions in this draft budget.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Mobilise 2010
UNISON Scotland ran a different type of training event last weekend. Mobilise 2010 was a campaign skills festival.
Instead of a conventional campaign skills course the weekend included a wide range of skills workshops and participants could choose which modules to attend. They included conventional training on media skills, campaign organisation, lobbying etc to highly participative sessions on public speaking, political song and the use of film. The evening's brought together some of the skills into a social setting.
Over a 100 activists and staff attended and the feedback was very positive. To get a flavour of the activities you can view films and photies on the Mobilise 2010 Facebook page.
Instead of a conventional campaign skills course the weekend included a wide range of skills workshops and participants could choose which modules to attend. They included conventional training on media skills, campaign organisation, lobbying etc to highly participative sessions on public speaking, political song and the use of film. The evening's brought together some of the skills into a social setting.
Over a 100 activists and staff attended and the feedback was very positive. To get a flavour of the activities you can view films and photies on the Mobilise 2010 Facebook page.
Full marks to those who chose to spend Saturday morning with me learning about public finance. Not the most exciting way to spend your weekend! The photie above is of the afternoon session on lobbying decision makers. Thanks to Pauline McNeil MSP for helping me out with this session.
Friday, 19 November 2010
Commission on Public Services
The Scottish Government has announced the membership and remit of its Commission on Public Services chaired by former STUC General Secretary, Campbell Christie.
The remit is broad whilst recognising the ethos of public services in Scotland, or as the FM has described it, "The Commission will therefore examine various options for reform whilst retaining the social democratic ethos of our public service delivery in Scotland".
Some of the vision points will be challenging, such as "are democratically accountable to the people of Scotland at both national and local levels". Local democratic accountability doesn't exist for most public services outwith councils and the two health boards that have the pilot direct election schemes. Having said that, this is hardly consistent with the draft budget proposals for local government that effectively reintroduce ring fencing and undermine local democracy.
The membership is a fairly predictable balance of interests. The one rather obvious gap, so far, is anyone who actually delivers public services. The Chair wisely avoided getting drawn into the election and therefore the Commission will report in June.
The Commission approach will no doubt be criticised by some. On the day Lord Young resigned we are duly warned of the shortcomings of the alternative approach. A pompous, opinionated individual, who made proposals on matters of life and death in health and safety law, without a scrap of evidence to support his findings. Give me a Commission with proper evidence procedures any day!
It is a perfectly reasonable idea to ask a Commission to take a detailed look at Scotland's fairly complex public service organisation. My scepticism comes from long experience of public service reorganisation. They almost always cause organisational paralysis for a couple of years up to the change and then a further two years while the structures are established. They rarely achieve the promised service gains or financial savings.
In the current financial crisis politicians talking about reorganisation is a tempting distraction technique from the impact of cuts in services. I was giving a presentation earlier this year to a visiting group of French business and union leaders. They expressed surprise at our Anglo-Saxon desire to constantly reorganise. After all, their key structures have hardly changed since Napoleon. I fear they may have the right approach.
The remit is broad whilst recognising the ethos of public services in Scotland, or as the FM has described it, "The Commission will therefore examine various options for reform whilst retaining the social democratic ethos of our public service delivery in Scotland".
Some of the vision points will be challenging, such as "are democratically accountable to the people of Scotland at both national and local levels". Local democratic accountability doesn't exist for most public services outwith councils and the two health boards that have the pilot direct election schemes. Having said that, this is hardly consistent with the draft budget proposals for local government that effectively reintroduce ring fencing and undermine local democracy.
The membership is a fairly predictable balance of interests. The one rather obvious gap, so far, is anyone who actually delivers public services. The Chair wisely avoided getting drawn into the election and therefore the Commission will report in June.
The Commission approach will no doubt be criticised by some. On the day Lord Young resigned we are duly warned of the shortcomings of the alternative approach. A pompous, opinionated individual, who made proposals on matters of life and death in health and safety law, without a scrap of evidence to support his findings. Give me a Commission with proper evidence procedures any day!
It is a perfectly reasonable idea to ask a Commission to take a detailed look at Scotland's fairly complex public service organisation. My scepticism comes from long experience of public service reorganisation. They almost always cause organisational paralysis for a couple of years up to the change and then a further two years while the structures are established. They rarely achieve the promised service gains or financial savings.
In the current financial crisis politicians talking about reorganisation is a tempting distraction technique from the impact of cuts in services. I was giving a presentation earlier this year to a visiting group of French business and union leaders. They expressed surprise at our Anglo-Saxon desire to constantly reorganise. After all, their key structures have hardly changed since Napoleon. I fear they may have the right approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)