Welcome to the Public Works blog.

Public Works is UNISON Scotland's campaign for jobs, services, fair taxation and the Living Wage. This blog will provide news and analysis on the delivery of public services in Scotland. We welcome comments and if you would like to contribute to this blog, please contact Dave Watson d.watson@unison.co.uk. For other information on what's happening in UNISON Scotland please visit our website.

Friday, 20 January 2017

Doing What Works

One of the less discussed issues in the debate about the growth of inequality over the past 30 years is that it has led to many people believing that government attempts to fight poverty and inequality have failed. This seems to have left many feeling nothing can be done. The welcome new analysis by IFS shows that many measures have been very effective and that a government that wants to improve life for those on low incomes can make a massive difference.

It is true that the one percent have increased their share of incomes but if you strip out the extremes and compare the 90% with the ten per cent then you see an increase in inequality in the 80s but this then begins to fall and it is lower now than it was 20 years ago. The tax and benefits system has “worked increasingly hard to offset the rise in inequality in pay in working households”
Both the deliberate increase in benefits and introduction of tax credits in the late nineties and early 21st century have boosted the incomes of low income households and protected those on low incomes from falls in pay.

Inequality in weekly pay for women has reduced. This is in part because there is no longer such a big variation in hours worked by women. Crucially women on lower hourly pay are more likely to be working full-time. So those women in the 10% percentile saw their weekly pay rise by 60% between 1994-5 and 2014-5 while those in the 90 percentile had 29% rise. Female weekly pay has also risen faster than male pay narrowing the gap between median weekly pay for men and women. This is partly due to rises in education levels for women relative to men.

But while net household income inequality has fallen weekly pay for men has become more unequal. Hourly pay for low paid men has been slow to grow and low paid men are working fewer hours which impacts on weekly incomes. It remains rare for middle and high wage men to work part-time but low paid men across all age groups are increasingly part-time workers. Whether men have partners or children does not seem to alter this trend. So it is not a sign that men are suddenly choosing to cut back working hours to take up a bigger share of childcare. Access to decent pay and full-time work is a grwing problem.

There is some good news: the tax and benefits system has been very effective in improving income equality across working households. Government focused on reducing poverty and inequality can make a difference.

Thursday, 19 January 2017

Ethical care: good for workers and those they care for

Raising social care standards is good for workers and the people they care for.

Today, I was at North Ayrshire Council, the latest employer in Scotland to sign up to UNISON’s Ethical Care Charter. The charter commits employers to a range of Fair Work principles including; the Scottish Living Wage, travelling time, sick pay and stable employment contracts. That’s good for workers, but it’s also good for service users, because the Charter provides for proper training and time to care, based on client need.

The Ethical Care Charter was developed by UNISON at UK Level in 2012, following a survey into the working conditions of homecare workers across the UK and production of a subsequent report, “Time to Care”.  The survey responses showed “a committed but poorly paid and treated workforce which is doing its best to maintain good levels of quality care in a system that is in crisis”. The comments from workers illustrated the correlation between poor terms and conditions and lower standards of care for the clients they served. 

UNISON Scotland surveyed Scottish homecare workers and published its own report entitled, ‘Scotland: It’s time to Care’ in February 2014. We followed that up with another survey ‘We Care Do You?’ in July last year. Both surveys painted a grim picture of social care in Scotland with the majority of workers indicating that the service was not sufficient to meet the needs of the elderly and vulnerable people they cared for. In particular, they didn’t have enough time to properly address people’s needs, with budget cuts and outsourcing putting an emphasis on quantity over quality.

The race to the bottom in social care has primarily been driven by budget cuts to councils. That neglect is now being addressed through additional funding, which should at least ensure that the living wage is paid, even if funding falls short of ensuring time to care. In part, the change has been driven by a belated recognition of the impact cutting social care is having on the NHS, with hospital beds being filled by patients who should be cared for in a community setting.

Councils who sign up to the Ethical Care Charter are showing just the sort of political leadership we need in Scotland on this crucial issue. We expect seven councils will have signed up by the end of this month – leaving plenty of room for others. 

Raising employment standards will help to address the high turnover of staff in the sector, providing some much needed continuity of care. Elderly and vulnerable people in Scotland deserve the highest care standards we can provide.

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Getting It Right in the Early Years

UNISON welcomes the Scottish government’s commitment to expand early learning and childcare. It is an important step in tackling both poverty and the attainment gap. Universal high quality childcare has been a long-term aim of the labour movement. The lessons of the expansion of the adult care sector need to be heeded: leaving delivery to the market managed via procurement contracts has led to a fragmented service, which is costly and hard for users to navigate, with varying quality of service and a race to the bottom for staff terms and conditions.

The private childcare sector is already struggling. The recent NESTA report Innovation in Childcare (Jill Ritter July 2016) states that “profit margins are tight for many providers”. So tight are they that the “innovation” NESTA offers as a route forward is to use unpaid volunteers including parents presumably to maintain profit margins.

The Scottish government is now considering voucher type schemes or extra funding for the private sector. Not only does this have a high risk of creating a service based on low-paid and unqualified staff it risks creating a two tier system where those who can afford to pay more will have access to better nurseries than those on low incomes. This will do the opposite of closing the attainment gap.

The JRF programme paper: Creating an Anti-poverty Childcare System states that a shift to supply side funding for pre-school childcare services is the most effective route forward:
“International evidence and the best examples of high quality provision in the UK suggest that the most effective approach to funding pre-school childcare is supply side funding, where investment is made directly in service. This approach provides the means to offer universal access to services and effectively shape the quality, affordability and flexibility” (Executive Summary page 3)

“the case for supply funded childcare is simple: it is the most effective means of delivering reliable access to affordable, flexible and high quality childcare regardless of ability to pay” (Executive Summary page 3)

Two of the many advantages of public sector provision are the ability to better co-ordinate childcare with other services, for example where an extended day nursery in co-located with a primary school on the same campus or links to child psychologist/social workers and ensuring that there is a fully qualified properly paid workforce. The government’s own research shows that “cheaper” nurseries only cost less because they pay the staff less. High quality provision requires fully qualified paid staff. If high standards for staff qualifications and pay are not set then we will end up with the same issues that are now causing problems in the care sector.

A comprehensive childcare service will directly benefit families and lead to long-term savings on a range of budgets. Setting up a childcare service will be expensive but if we are serious about building a fairer Scotland it is essential investment.

UNISON submission to the Scottish Government Consultation is available here

Monday, 16 January 2017

Getting it right in schools

Reorganising education governance is simply a distraction from the real issues facing our schools as highlighted in UNISON Scotland’s survey of school staffs. That’s also the conclusion of a wide range of published responses to the Scottish Government’s governance consultation.


UNISON Scotland’s response to the consultation highlights the OECD report on Scottish education, which identifies successes and challenges in the Scottish education system and offers recommendations to drive continued improvement. The report points out that it’s time “for a bold approach that moves beyond system management in a new dynamic nearer to teacher and learning”. Instead we are seeing a continued focus on systems and governance.


Current education structures provide democratic accountability through local government. Parent councils and parent forums also exist to give parents a voice in their children’s schools. Local authorities also provide a balance allowing economies of scale for HR services, purchasing and specialist support. Where there are difficulties for head teachers accessing the support they need the issues are about staff shortages and budget cuts not the structures involved. Managing more bureaucracy under central direction is the last thing schools need.


If the government needs an example of this, then we give them one today in our publication ‘Hard Lessons’. In probably one of the biggest surveys of school support staff ever in Scotland, staff report heavier workloads, jobs cuts, lack of educational supplies, and dirtier schools. This is while pupil numbers and education support needs are increasing.


There are 6707 more pupils since 2010 in Scottish schools, but there 1841 less support staff and 1389 less teachers. This report confirms the enormous stress this puts on support staff.


54% of support staff say budgets have been cut, 40% carry out unpaid work to meet workloads, 60% say morale is low, and 80% say workloads are heavier. And services like school libraries are closing. Many report stress from the lack of training and support they receive for the tasks they are asked to carry out – like administering medicines or caring for pupils with challenging behaviour.


The report reveals a dedicated workforce committed to supporting children to reach their potential. Staff skip breaks and work late to meet their pupil’s needs. But they are exhausted, undervalued and under enormous pressure.


Any serious attempt to improve educational attainment has to start well before children get to school - that’s why early learning is so important. In UNISON Scotland’s submission to the Scottish Government’s ‘Blueprint 2020’ for early leaning and childcare, we place an emphasis on quality provision.


We need to make sure that we learn the lessons of the adult care sector where we now have a fragmented service, which is costly and hard for users to navigate, with varying quality of service and a race to the bottom for staff terms and conditions. The voucher schemes proposed in the consultation have a high risk of creating a service based on low paid and unqualified staff.  It risks creating a two tier system where those who can afford to pay more on top of the vouchers will have access to better nurseries than those on low incomes. Vouchers also add extra complexity and administrative costs to the system. Vouchers will do the opposite of closing the attainment gap.


The Scottish Government’s ambition to close the attainment gap is entirely right. However, simply moving the deck chairs didn’t work for the Titanic and it won’t work for schools. The focus should instead be on tackling the issues identified in today’s UNISON report and invest in preventative spending like early learning.

Thursday, 12 January 2017

A new approach to public service reform

Since the publication of the Christie Commission report five years ago, public sector reform has been largely piecemeal and driven by austerity cuts. The debate can also drift into a contest between localism and centralism. In a paper for the Reid Foundation, I argue for a holistic approach to reform with services built upwards from integrated local delivery, while recognising that in a small country there is an important role for the centre.

The paper starts by making the case for public services as the measure of a civilised society, but also as the basis of a more equitable society and a stronger economy. I then describe the many challenges facing Scotland’s public services – primarily financial, but also the impact of our deeply unequal society and demographic change.

The public service workforce has often been an afterthought in service reform. This is a serious oversight given that workers, directly or indirectly employed, are central to service delivery. I describe the impact of austerity on the workforce and how a new approach, built around a national workforce framework, could avoid unnecessary duplication and support integration.

Scotland’s approach to public service reform has taken a different route to the rest of the UK since devolution. I describe the various initiatives including the Christie Commission report and its patchy implementation. Reforms elsewhere are also covered, along with ideas generated by academics and think tanks across the UK and in Europe. 

A new approach to public service reform has to be based on a set of underlying principles. I suggest nine principles (see infographic) that all reform proposals should be tested against. 

How we finance public services is a crucial issue. This involves difficult discussions around taxation, now that we have significant devolved powers. It includes a better understanding of what we mean by universalism and the importance of preventative spending. Local taxation also needs radical reform, not further tinkering. We also need a new approach to funding capital investment, away from ruinously expensive PPP schemes.

Most reform measures start with central government and then consider what powers to devolve. I propose an alternative approach that starts with recognisable communities and builds service delivery from the bottom up. Community hubs could physically site services together, breaking down the silo mentality that Christie identified. Service design would be done with citizens and front line staff adopting ideas from Systems Thinking, The Enabling State, Participatory Budgeting and Co-operative councils. This would then form the basis for a debate on the best structure for local government, the NHS and services delivered by national bodies, ensuring democratic accountability.

Where I differ with pure localism is in advocating an important role for central government - not in directing service delivery from the centre, but focusing on strategic outcomes. I would even go somewhat further than that. In a country the size of Scotland there is no value in unnecessary duplication and difference for the sake of it. National frameworks would allow local services to focus on service design without reinventing the wheel. A national workforce framework is a good example of this, possibly leading to the concept of a single public service worker.

The scale of the challenges facing public services in Scotland is immense. If they were challenging five years ago when the Christie Commission reported, they are even more so now. This paper argues that there is balanced approach to reform in a small country. We do that by building public services from the bottom up based on the principle of subsidiarity, with integration, democracy and transparency at the core of delivery. The role of central government should be to set the strategic direction and agree frameworks that allow the local to focus on what matters. 

I don’t expect everyone to agree with all I say in what is not a short read! I also accept that the solutions need further development. However, I hope it’s a helpful contribution to the debate that attempts to identify solutions to the challenges facing our vital public services.

A major new policy paper by Dave Watson of UNISON.
The Paper will be launched at a seminar on Friday 20 January at 10am, free to attend but registration is essential.   Register online at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/public-service-reform-in-scotland-launch-of-new-policy-paper-by-dave-watson-tickets-30926610324
The venue is Lecture Theatre 2, Appleton Tower, University of Edinburgh, 11 Crichton Street, EH8 9LE http://www.ed.ac.uk/maps/maps?building=appleton-tower
Registration tea/coffee 10.00/30 and event begins 10.30am-12.30pm.
Chairperson: Professor James Mitchell; Speaker: Dave Watson: Questions and discussion
The Foundation gratefully acknowledge the support given by the University Academy of Government in the organisation of the seminar

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Public sector top of the league for consumer trust

Scotland’s public sector water industry rates the “most trusted” sector among Scottish consumers at 68%. In contrast, private sector energy is one of the “least trusted” at 36%.

This is set out in a report by the consumer group Which? on consumer attitudes in Scotland. The report shows some interesting contrasts between the views of consumers north and south of the border.

Public spending cuts topped consumer concerns in both tables, but the concern was much greater in Scotland at 74%, compared to 62% elsewhere in the UK.

Energy prices are a bigger concern in Scotland at 67%, compared to 56% in the rest of the UK. However, 68% have not switched supplier in the past five years and only a quarter who considered it actually switched. Most though the price difference wasn’t worth the hassle.

Nine out of the ten most financially distressed constituencies in Scotland are in Glasgow. Western Isles is the least distressed.

Only 10% of consumers had a problem with public services in the last two years.

So good is public sector water delivery that Scottish Water’s expertise is in demand worldwide. The public corporation’s international arm has generated more than £8 million of turnover, in total, since it was established in 2012. It recorded a £200,000 profit last year.

Maybe public ownership is the right approach for other utilities!

Friday, 16 December 2016

Draft Scottish Budget - read with care!

If you are struggling with the different interpretations of the Scottish Government’s draft budget, don't panic, it is confusing!

My briefing for UNISON branches attempts to cut through the spin and outline the impact on the services our members deliver. In this blog I will instead focus on a few key points.

Firstly, this is a real budget, not just spending plans, because it includes the revenue raising powers.
So we start with the block grant, which is being cut by 9% due to UK austerity plans between 2010-11 and 2019-20. However, in the coming year the Scottish Government has a little wriggle room because there is a small real terms increase in funding of £188m. The next two years are considerably tougher under current UK plans.

Then you add in any of use the devolved tax powers. They have decided not to increase income tax, although not cutting tax for higher rate (40p) taxpayers should generate an additional £79m. Other devolved taxes on land transactions, landfill and aggregates, generate small additional revenues.

Of course taxes can be reduced as well, and the budget confirms that they remain committed to a 50% cut in Air Passenger Duty - an unaffordable, environmentally damaging tax cut for the better off. Thankfully, not this year though because it would cost a massive £171m to implement. That's the same as this year's real term increase in NHS spending.

The most confusing spin is over the local government budget allocation. I'm afraid when our branches sit down with their councils to discuss the budget, they will find that their director of finance doesn't recognise Derek Mackay's extra £240m. Unsurprisingly, the reality is somewhere in-between his spin and that of some councils.

We should remember that the Scottish budget only determines the Scottish Government's allocation to councils - important though that is. There is a real terms cut in the local government (including grants) budget allocation of £327m. The Scottish Government argues that this is mitigated by the extra income from the council tax bands (£111m) and helpfully they have abandoned plans to expropriate that for their own priorities. While this shouldn’t appear in the Scottish budget, it is a real additional source of revenue, albeit one that will benefit better off councils with higher banded properties. Councils with disadvantaged communities will also have to fund the improvements to the council tax reduction scheme.

The government then adds in the extra £107m coming from the NHS budget for social care. This won’t impress your finance director because it is for a specific additional commitment (contractors living wage) so won’t help to mitigate grant cuts. That's not to say that it isn't very welcome and desperately needed to help stave off a staffing crisis in social care. There are some other additional pots, but again these are ring-fenced. Yes, they did claim they would stop doing that!

The government then gets very cheeky by assuming that councils will increase the council tax by the maximum 3% they are allowing - generating £70m of real extra revenue. Again, this is a matter for councils, who may reasonably point out that the government isn’t using its tax raising powers. The Scottish Government will not 'pass on austerity to the household budgets' with a national tax, but has an expectation that councils should do that locally. This looks like an exercise in political buck passing.

Branches will also find that their finance director has a long list of unavoidable commitments that also don’t appear in Derek MacKay's calculations. Not least the cost of the UK Apprenticeship Levy that the Scottish Government appears to be pocketing the revenue from. Councils can reasonably argue that they have a good record in creating apprenticeships and should get this cash reimbursed.

So, the bottom line is that councils are yet again facing the biggest budget cut. In fairness, there is some scope for mitigation, but nowhere near the spin the government is putting on the figures.

We should also have a quick look at the health budget. Health boards get a cash increase of £321m, but that falls to £170m in real terms. The assumption is that inflation will be 1.5%, but health inflation is usually significantly higher.

Health branches will also find their directors of finance are less than impressed by this figure. They also have unavoidable commitments including the Apprenticeship Levy. However, the biggest issue will be the £107m directed to integration authorities to pay for the increase in the living wage. This is very welcome and a justifiable priority, but it’s not NHS spending. It is blatant double counting to include this in NHS budgets and the local government finance order.

Part of the problem with the 'Draft Budget' is that it isn't really a budget document at all. Most of the 186 pages set out a political narrative, which is not unreasonable, but adding in numbers that have nothing to do with the government's budget to spending tables, crosses a line for me. So read with care!