UNISON's
approach
Scottish public services should generally be delivered by
their own directly employed workforce and facilities. This
approach delivers the integrated, cost-effective and universal
services that the public needs. Public Public Partnerships
funded through conventional borrowing is preferable to the
waste and inefficiency of private finance.
BACKGROUND AND OUTLOOK
Quality public services are a marker of a decent society.
Renewed investment in recent years in Scotland’s public
services has made a real difference to people’s lives,
strengthened our communities and boosted the economy.
Lessons have been learned from the disasters of contracting
out hospital and schools cleaning and catering services.
Most have since been returned in-house and UNISON would
strongly oppose any renewed attempts within the public sector
to contract out work and privatise on the flawed premise
that this would lead to savings. The lowest price is rarely
the best value for money and past experience shows that
such ruthless cost cutting leads to reduced services, poorer
conditions for staff and the cutting of corners in vital
areas (e.g. hospital cleaning), with potentially lethal
consequences.
UNISON is proud of the work the union has undertaken in
opposing such privatisations and in securing the return
of contracts back in-house and in the ending of the two-tier
workforce in PFI/PPP and other contracts.
Public bodies seeking to reduce costs by outsourcing services
will be guilty of financial mismanagement if they fail to
consider the full implications and to assess properly what
the actual level of real savings might be. We would argue
such an assessment would find that most of the so-called
savings are due to cutting jobs or terms and conditions,
which leads to a reduced quality of service.
Similarly, the idea of sharing services between local authorities
and between other public bodies is flawed if the key aim
is to deliver early and longer term cost savings.
UNISON’s Public Works campaign has highlighted the
excellent value for money that quality public services deliver.
Prosperity and sustainability depends on further investment
in the public sector, supporting recovery from the economic
crisis, not targeting cuts at those who did not cause the
crisis and are most affected by it.
UNISON supports partnership working and believes public
sector organisations should make the most of opportunities
to work more efficiently and effectively. However, while
sharing services might offer some opportunities, we are
sceptical that it can be any kind of panacea for making
significant savings and certainly not in the short term.
Experience in Australia and elsewhere has shown there are
many downsides, including centralisation, the loss of jobs
with resulting damage to local economies, and the loss of
local accountability. The evidence is that sharing of services
can cost money in the short term, due to the need to invest
in new processes and systems, accommodation and IT. Such
moves may not save money in the longer term either. The
National Audit Office suggests it takes an average of five
years before any savings materialise. UNISON is also concerned
that some proposals may include privatising services via
sharing with a private provider. This could put at risk
terms and conditions and lead to relocations and further
job losses.
Where there have been moves to look at sharing services,
such as in the Clyde Valley councils covered by Sir John
Arbuthnott’s 2009 report, UNISON argues strongly that
engagement with the trade unions is essential in examining
the many implications, for the affected service(s) and for
the workforce. There must be full consultation and negotiation
with staff, who have the knowledge and understanding to
assess whether proposals are realistic and possible to implement
or perhaps are unworkable or have the potential to seriously
damage the service(s) involved.
We recognise the tight financial situation and the need
to deliver services as efficiently as possible. We are in
favour of working with employers on how best to do that,
based on the evidence of what does and doesn’t work.
Another area that patently has not worked well for the
taxpayer has been the gravy train for the private sector
that was and is Private Finance Initiative/Public Private
Partnerships. Like proposals for shared services, it has
made extensive and expensive use of private consultants.
Although PFI/PPP is widely discredited now, the public still
has to pick up the tab for many remaining years of extortionate
payments for the schools, prisons and hospitals that were
commissioned this way. The total annual cost of the unitary
charges for the £30billion worth of PFI/PPP projects
in Scotland is set to rise from £820million in 2010-11
to a peak of £1.097billion in 2024-25, putting huge
strain on public sector budgets. This does not include the
cost of the planned joint facilities to be built around
Scotland under the country’s newest form of PFI/PPP,
the £1billion hub community partnership initiative,
being managed by the Scottish Futures Trust. The hub could
see private companies managing health centres and similar
community health facilities.
UNISON wants to see a complete end to PFI/PPP. Instead
‘Public Public Partnerships’, funded through
conventional borrowing, should be the future policy for
public investment. The Scottish Futures Trust has also been
widely disparaged and seems unlikely to deliver any major
benefits, while paying out six figure salaries to its top
staff. In fact, the SFT has refused to rule out using full
blown PFI/PPP, completely ignoring the mass of evidence
over what poor value for money such contracts deliver and
how they have mortgaged future generations to the hilt.
Of course the public wants to see capital investment in
replacing crumbling schools and hospitals. New borrowing
powers for the Scottish Government, as recommended by the
Calman Commission, will help provide funds. UNISON’s
realistic plan for alternatives to PFI/PPP includes:
- No new PPP contracts
- Review existing contracts with ‘buyouts’
where that saves public money
- Scottish Government grants for new capital projects
to create a true level playing field irrespective of the
method of procurement
- Give health boards Prudential Borrowing powers
- Exclude staff from transfer and strengthen PPP staffing
protocols
We believe that the private profit motive has no place
in running public services. The Scottish public service
ethos has a proud history, is valued by the general public
and should be maintained and strengthened.
KEY QUESTIONS
How do we encourage political parties to adopt a Public
Works approach?
How do we ensure that partnership working is about efficiency
and effectiveness rather than cost cutting?
What can be done to make sure that the key determinant
of funding public services is value not simply cost?
Draft published: 5 December 2009
Current version updated: 20 January 2010
Members and branches can help to develop these
policy ideas further.
|
million
voices for change - PUBLIC WORKS!
