Localism - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 9 June 2011