Written evidence submitted by UNISON (LOCO
084)
SUMMARY
In this submission, UNISON presents its evidence
to the committee and calls for:
¾ Greater
direct involvement of councillors in the delivery of local public
services.
¾ The
development of jointly agreed models for decentralisation.
¾ Flexibility
of directly provides services in preference to restrictive contracted
out services.
¾ Research
into the economic costs of contracting.
¾ An inquiry
into the conflicts of interests of the major auditing companies.
INTRODUCTION
UNISON is the largest public service union in the
UK with 1.4 million members. Our local government section represents
850,000 workers delivering essential local public services. Not
only are these workers, but many also hold or have held public
office on behalf of different political parties, and all use public
services themselves. These three strands give UNISON a unique
view on how public services are delivered.
At local level, UNISON members work in integrated
public services, between different local authorities or with other
public sector organisations such Primary Care Trusts. It is regrettably
that many of the Total Place pilots did not seek to use this repository
of experience, but this has not prevented UNISON locally and nationally
attempting to be involved with the pilots and engaging in the
debate.
Our overall experience is that the Total Place concept
can lead to better and more efficient public services. However,
there are total issues about local democratic accountability (as
also highlighted by the interim report into Total Place)[20]
and about service quality being overlooked in a drive to make
cost savings.
We note that Total Place itself was confined to England,
but the principles behind it influenced the devolved administrations
and so believe this inquiry to have relevance throughout the UK.
Below we comment on the questions that the committee
is seeking to answer.
The role of local government in a decentralised
model of local public service delivery, and the extent to which
localism can and should extend to other local agents
Local Government has rightly been identified as the
primary representative of citizens at local level,[21]
and the "first amongst equals" in Local Strategic Partnerships
and the accountable body for Local Area Grant funding. It is through
government—in this case local government—that the
elected representatives of the public can have a direct influence
on how public money is spent.
So it is regrettable that the implementation of the
"Duty to promote democracy"[22]
has been indefinitely delayed. Where individual citizens have
the skills, knowledge and personal contacts to influence local
public bodies, they need less assistance. But in many areas—particularly
deprived areas—this is not the case. If localism is to genuinely
empower local people, then local authorities must act as an active
gateway to enable citizens to participate with public sector service
providers.
The position of local elected representatives—councillors—is
critical as leaders representing their electors and facilitating
their involvement in public life. Since the "committee system"
was abolished[23]
and (largely) replaced by a leader and cabinet system, the majority
of "backbench" councillors have had much less direct
contact with local authority services, despite attempts to engage
them, including by UNISON.[24]
Scrutiny committees were intended to offset this,
although our experience is that they have been under-resourced,
subject to political control by the majority party, and individual
councillors have simply not had the knowledge to challenge council
officers. In Liverpool, a scrutiny committee looking at "Liverpool
Direct" met for years but was completely unaware of damning
internal council reports.[25]
Councillors would have a deeper knowledge of services if they
had closer involvement with them, and we welcome the Government's
proposals to permit a return to the "committee system".[26]
However, it seems contradictory that at the same
time it is proposed that local power can be further centralised
by encouraging to adopt an "executive leader" merging
the posts of council leader and chief executive.[27]
In addition, the current health white paper anticipates that Health
and Wellbeing Boards will scrutinise local NHS and social care
provision in place of existing overview and scrutiny committees.
The proposals for these would mean that the council leader or
mayor is the only elected representative on them, further sidelining
other elected members.
If public services are to retain their unique character
under a localised system of governance, then public sector norms—including
freedom of information and strong equality duties—must apply.
This includes local strategic partnerships, GPs consortia, and
the parts of social enterprises and private companies which deliver
public services.
The action which will be necessary on the part
of Whitehall departments to achieve effective decentralised public
service delivery
The idea of devolution of services may be attractive,
but the benefits of such a change can easily be outweighed by
the organisational turmoil which they create, and which may continue
for years. The legal framework in which large-scale changes in
service delivery (such as decentralisation) will take place includes
equalities legislation (with equal pay), the TUPE (Transfer of
Undertakings Protection of Employees) regulations and the "two-tier"
workforce code. This is in addition to the major cultural barriers
which exist between different organisations. The time and money
invested in such a change can be badly spent if long-lasting legal
and industrial relations problems are created in the process.
Where changes have been incremental, such as in integrated
health and social care, significant progress have been made. But
there needs to be an enforceable requirement to cooperate on all
public service providers—not just in the public sector—for
this to work, and it is concerning that some[28]
public service providers outside the public sector are less interested.
The creation of new unitary authorities in recent
years took place in a framework set out by government, in partnership
with trade unions. For a more complex decentralisation such as
that currently envisaged, a more comprehensive model, or set of
models, should be developed at national level with the buy-in
of all stakeholders in a positive industrial relations climate.
This would ensure that staff received a fair deal and these models
could then be rolled out at local level without creating the similar
set of problems in each locality.
There are numerous examples[29]
of the key role that trade unions play as facilitators of change
in public services, especially major "transformational"
change. In Manchester, Swansea and elsewhere joint agreements
have facilitated major change. Research has affirmed that the
inclusion of Trade Unions in these changes has led to improved
services, efficiency savings, improved productivity, better access
to services and new ways of working.
Finally, it is important that the government is consistent
if the concept of Localism is to remain meaningful. The top-down
programme of creating Academy schools at the behest of the Secretary
of State and bypassing local democratic processes undermines decentralisation
and effective delivery of education. The public will not have
confidence that there is a meaningful commitment to localism when
such glaring contradictions in government policy remain.
The impact of decentralisation on the achievement
of savings in the cost of local public services and the effective
targeting of cuts to those services
The results of the Total Place pilots showed that
closer integration of public services targeted at individuals
and families with high needs produced a more efficient use of
public resources.[30]
They also demonstrated how preventative action could reduce the
burdens on public services as a whole. The Dorset pilot found
how £155,000 could be saved through preventative action to
delay care home admissions by better supporting elderly people
in their own homes.
This clearly requires careful planning and integration
of public services. Replicating silos at local level would lose
the advantages of localism. The use of commercial contracts and
outsourcing services sets in stone their operation, and greatly
restricts the flexibility of the public sector. Indeed, Professor
Tony Travers has stated that.[31]
Instead, an approach of co-operation between public bodies with
freedom to adapt when and how they see fit is more likely to produce
these results.
Hillingdon Homes is in the process of being taken
back in-house by a Conservative council to reduce replication
of functions and to make savings.
There are clearly substantial costs involved in the
creation of a market system for the provision of decentralised
services, including the cost of market making and monitoring;
the procurement process; effective client-side monitoring; external
consultancy costs; the extraction of profit, and more. These have
not been adequately assessed and should be examined as a matter
of urgency.
The London Borough of Ealing has just decided to
take its Highways service back in-house; making savings by a reduction
in agency staff and removing the overhead of a profit for the
contractor.
An alternative model, such as that pursued by Newcastle
City Services, is one which made substantial savings and raised
standards by a process of transformation that utilised the skills
and innovation of existing workers, and used their trade union
as the agent of change.[32]
Indeed, there are now many examples of trade unions being key
agents of change for major service transformations.[33]
What, if any, arrangements for the oversight of
local authority performance will be necessary to ensure effective
public service delivery
The general public is unlikely to have the time,
expertise, or access to pertinent information to properly scrutinise
the expenditure of public money by local authorities in terms
of value-for-money or service quality. At a time of spending reductions,
this task is particularly important.
Therefore it is important that an informed, independent,
external opinion is available to the public. UNISON is concerned
that the abolition of the Audit Commission was done rashly, and
will leave auditing of local authorities increasing in the hands
of the "big four" auditors—whose dominance has
been criticised even within their own sector.[34]
Not only may this cost more,[35]
but it these companies also generate significant revenue from
consultancy services offered to local authorities and other parts
of the public sector, and we have concerns about the independence
of all their actions. They have, for example, given over £1.3
million to Conservative Party in recent years.[36]
An inquiry into the conflicts of interests of the
major auditing companies should be held.
How effective and appropriate accountability can
be achieved for expenditure on the delivery of local services,
especially for that voted by parliament rather than raised locally
The public expect that politicians will be accountable
for the public money that they spend, which applies to money raised
nationally as much as money raised locally. Whilst localism has
some advantages, it is important that there are high minimum standards
that publicly funded services maintain, and are seen to maintain.
October 2010
20 "Purpose, Power,
Knowledge, Time & Space", Local Government Leadership
Centre, Jan 2010 Back
21
"Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities: Statutory
Guidance", CLG, July 2008 Back
22
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, 2009 Back
23
Local Government Act, 2000 Back
24
_ "Think Twice - The
role of elected members in commissioning", Mar 2009, LGIU/APSE/UNISON
Back
25
"Liverpool councillor demands secret Liverpool Direct Limited
report answers", Liverpool Echo, Sept 29, 2010 Back
26
"The Coalition: Our programme for government", Cabinet
Office, May 2010 Back
27
Eric Pickles, speech to LGA Conference, 6 July 2010 Back
28
"Concerns over GP commissioning", Local Government
Chronicle, 29 July 2010 Back
29
"The value of trade union involvement to service delivery",
APSE/UNISON, July 2010 Back
30
"Dorset & Poole Total Place Pilot Final Report",
www.dorsetfogryou.com/totalplace Back
31
"Value for money in PFIs", Tony Travers, 25 Feb 2010,
Local Government Chronicle Back
32
"Public Service Reform ... but not as we know it!",
Little and Wainwright, Picnic Publishing, 2009 Back
33
"The value of trade union involvement to service delivery",
APSE/UNISON, July 2010 Back
34
Grant Thornton, submission to the House of Lords economic affairs
committee, 2010, "Accountancy Age", 29 Sept, 2010 Back
35
www.publicservice.co.uk Back
36
www.taxresearch.org.uk Back
| 
