logo
Public sector reform: you can't fix it by cutting those delivering it

Public sector reform: you can't fix it by cutting those delivering it

Read more from Roz Foyer:
Let me be clear: the workers of these services were heroic. Their efforts cannot be forgotten, and ministers would do well to remember this as they plot their savings. It was the infrastructure surrounding them – lack of sick pay, poor planning and the complete absence of enforcement of covid regulations – as well as the under-resourcing of crucial sectors such as social care that meant workers were thrown to the wolves. If reforms of our public services are to mean anything, then our message is simple: you can't fix public services by cutting the people who deliver them. It's illogical to talk about reducing headcount while NHS waiting times, A&E delays and social care backlogs are at crisis levels all while local government has been effectively gutted.
Scotland deserves high-quality public services that are fully funded, resilient and responsive. That means investing in the workforce, not undermining it. In many ways, we've seen this story before.
Just a few years ago, Kate Forbes attempted to reduce the number of public sector jobs to 'pre-pandemic' levels, with some 30,000 workers to be sent packing. The move was quickly jettisoned. But it's clear to see that reform of our public services has always loomed large in the background.
This aborted move followed what we saw in the early 2010s, when austerity budgets passed down from government shrunk the size of the Scottish public sector by 10%, with the local government workforce reducing by 60,000.
Despite the promises of central government that these were 'efficiencies' and government spending would be more 'targeted', what actually happened, to put it crudely, was ministers issued edicts on spending to local authorities, the Chief Executives and departmental heads of which, purely, looked at headcount and cut from there.
If council chief executives are being told to cut their cloth accordingly, it's little wonder they look immediately to their staffing costs and misguidedly assume that's the place to start. This cannot be repeated this time around.
That's not to say we are against reform, far from it. Savings can and should be made if we genuinely adhere to the Christie Commission's principles of empowerment, partnership and prevention. Campbell Christie, was of course, a former General Secretary of the STUC.
Savings can also be made if we root out the profiteers involved in so many of our public services. Take social care – up to £28 in every £100 leaks out of care homes in the form of profits, rent, payments to the directors, and interest payments on loans. Or take the outsourcing giants charging our schools £60 to change a lightbulb.
But reform to address this will require upfront investment to insource services and savings are likely to take years to materialise.
Presenting public service reform as a means to save money while simultaneously improving services is fundamentally dishonest. The reality is that across almost every developed country in the world, public spending is increasing. Years of austerity and demographic pressures, not to mention the investments needed to tackle the climate crisis, make this unavoidable.
For all the talk of AI and technological change – a point the First Minister was at pains to mention in his speeches last week – an aging population will require greater investment in services delivered by people, not machines. If I'm speaking frankly here: Alison the social care worker, not AI, administers your granny their medicine and care. That cannot be replaced, no matter how much we, as a society, seek to embrace new ways of working. There are people in our workforce – those who toiled and sacrificed during the pandemic – that cannot be cast aside just because politicians think that ChatGPT is the future.
Yes, there will be genuine savings to be found by embracing technology, we don't doubt that. Unions are proceeding with caution and with eyes open. Artificial intelligence is here and it's here to stay. If used correctly, recognising the labour of those that created the content in the first place, it can revolutionise, for good, the world of work. It could – and I stress could – correct the power dynamic between the executives and the employees. But it cannot and should not be used as a pre-requisite for efficiency savings which cost workers their livelihoods.
Before charging ahead, the Scottish Government must engage meaningfully with trade unions. We have made it clear to ministers that we will not support any plan that puts public services or public service workers at risk. Politicians across the political spectrum need to face up to the fact that total tax revenues will have to rise in the coming years.
The truth is, no matter how well-intentioned reforms of our public services are, the Scottish Government has powers of taxation that could raise up to £3.7 billion of extra revenue. This not only addresses our financial challenges, but it also gives public services the oxygen they need to breathe.
That's the real reform we need in Scotland.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reform the NHS, not our shopping baskets
Reform the NHS, not our shopping baskets

Telegraph

time3 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Reform the NHS, not our shopping baskets

This week, the NHS will publish its 10 Year Health Plan. The most we can expect from this exercise in Soviet-style planning is tinkering around the edges of an edifice that was erected when Joseph Stalin ruled in Moscow. By 2035, the end date of this 10-year plan, the country will almost certainly be unable to afford the NHS in its present form – if, indeed, it hasn't collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions by then. Unable to address the fundamental problems of the NHS, the dirigistes of Whitehall have come up with a new plan to direct us how to lead our lives – telling us what we should or shouldn't be allowed to choose to put in our shopping baskets. Supermarkets will be expected to cut 100 calories from the average shopping basket by limiting sales of sugary and salty snacks or other 'junk food'. Ever since Napoleon Bonaparte sneered at England as 'a nation of shopkeepers', we have worn his insult as a badge of honour. We are proud to be a people who earn our living by trade and we cherish the liberties that are the glory of a commercial society. Even those of us who are not shopkeepers are at least customers. So little does this Labour Government know the British people that it is about to resort to distinctly Napoleonic measures to punish both retailers and consumers. Yet previous attempts to control consumption have never succeeded in changing enduring patterns of behaviour rooted in human nature. It is outrageous that officials feel empowered to tell us what we can, and cannot, eat. The public is being infantilised and robbed of agency. Centuries have passed since Parliament abandoned sumptuary laws that prohibited the lower orders from imitating the luxurious dress of the aristocracy. But the bureaucratic mind is obdurate in its disdain for popular tastes in food and drink. Combined with Labour's instinct to meddle, along with its insatiable fiscal appetite, it is no surprise that, as we report today, a modern version of the sumptuary laws is about to land on an unsuspecting nation. Obesity is a genuine and growing problem, but, hitherto, all attempts to address it by fiscal means have failed. The latest obesity tax – supermarkets will be fined if they don't reduce the nation's calorie intake, and this will inevitably be passed on to consumers – now emerging from the bowels of the Health Department and the Treasury, claims to be aimed directly at our waistlines. In reality, like all its predecessors, it will target our wallets. There is a certain grim irony in the fact that this policy should have been adopted at the same time as the decision by the NHS to prescribe the weight-loss drug semaglutide (contained in Ozempic and Wegovy). It is fairly obvious that the underlying rationale of the new regulations is less about obesity than about the Government's failure to control spending. No doubt figures will be trotted out about how many lives will be saved by cutting consumption of ultra-processed foods or any other category of comestible that attracts the ire of the health bureaucrats. But the truth is that new rules are being concocted because the Government is running scared of its own MPs, who have effectively imposed a veto on cuts in welfare spending. What would genuinely make a difference to life expectancy and health outcomes would, of course, be a radical reform of the NHS, a more active population, and a reduction in the numbers wasting their lives on benefits. Rachel Reeves has just poured another £29 billion into the health service, without any clear cost-benefit calculation. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is intelligent enough to know that he has inherited an obsolete behemoth that is crying out for root-and-branch reform. But building a new consensus for a new NHS would require the Labour Party to rethink its assumptions about the social contract, as well as the role of insurance and individual responsibility. The original 1946 NHS Act created 'a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales'. Today, the nation's health is not safe in the hands of a dysfunctional Labour Party that would rather do anything – even introducing an assisted-dying service – than take on the overdue task of making the NHS fit for purpose. These new directives are at best a displacement activity, at worst an act of fiscal condescension. A nation of shopkeepers deserves better than to be bossed around by its own government.

Bereaved urge ‘truth' as Covid inquiry shifts focus to care homes
Bereaved urge ‘truth' as Covid inquiry shifts focus to care homes

Glasgow Times

time3 hours ago

  • Glasgow Times

Bereaved urge ‘truth' as Covid inquiry shifts focus to care homes

Grieving relatives will give evidence this week as the module looking at the adult social care sector begins. The first week of what is to be a five-week module will also hear from former health secretary Matt Hancock. Former health secretary Matt Hancock has given evidence to the Covid inquiry multiple times (Jordan Pettitt/PA) Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. He will return on Wednesday for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector. In 2023 he admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously called this phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice (CBFFJ) campaign group said people want answers about decisions made 'at the highest levels of government'. From Monday, module six of the inquiry will look at the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Among the issues to be examined will be decisions made by the UK Government and devolved administrations on moving people from hospitals into adult care and residential homes in the early stages of the pandemic. The module will also consider how the pandemic was managed in care and residential homes, including infection prevention and control measures, testing for the virus, the availability and adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE), and the restrictions on access to such locations by healthcare professionals and loved ones. Charlie Williams' 85-year-old father, Vernute, died at a care home in April 2020. The latest module will focus on the care sector (Alamy/PA) Mr Williams, a member of CBFFJ, said: 'We have been waiting years for this moment. What happened in care homes during the pandemic was not a tragic accident, it was the result of decisions made at the highest levels of government. 'Covid-positive patients were knowingly discharged from hospitals into care homes. There was no testing, no PPE, and no plan to protect the most vulnerable. 'Those in care were left to die. Bereaved families deserve to know who made those decisions and why.' The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. Mr Williams said not calling Mr Johnson and other senior figures was 'shocking', adding: 'They were at the centre of government when these choices were made, and the inquiry's decision to exclude them is baffling and deeply damaging to any sense of justice.' He said: 'This is the moment for those responsible to finally tell the truth. We want answers. We want accountability. We want justice.' Members of bereaved groups from across the UK will give evidence on Tuesday, while representatives of the National Care Forum and Royal College of Nursing will give evidence on Thursday. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.

Defence Scotland: SNP told to urgently rethink 'mad' strategy as internal fears grow
Defence Scotland: SNP told to urgently rethink 'mad' strategy as internal fears grow

Scotsman

time5 hours ago

  • Scotsman

Defence Scotland: SNP told to urgently rethink 'mad' strategy as internal fears grow

Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As governments across the globe grapple with the most dangerous international landscape in a generation, John Swinney is under pressure to allow the SNP to have its first proper debate on where it stands on defence in more than a decade. The alternative risk is of his party 'falling behind' and Scotland potentially missing out on crucial investment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The defence, aerospace and security industry is estimated to be worth around £3.2 billion to Scotland. The Ministry of Defence spends more than £2bn each year with Scottish industry. The forward section of Type 26 Frigate HMS Cardiff is rolled out from the SBOH at BAE Systems Shipyard in Govan, Scotland. Picture: John Linton/BAE Systems/Royal Navy | John Linton Despite conflict still raging on the European continent and the situation in the Middle East still resulting in lives, including children, being lost every day, the SNP has not had a proper debate about where it stands on defence policy since 2012. Instead a position to block investments perceived to be linked to munitions and an unassailable opposition to the Trident nuclear weapons system, located on the Clyde, are the SNP's flagship defence policies. UK to boost defence spending With Sir Keir Starmer's UK government committing to spend 5 per cent of its GDP on defence by 2035, the SNP has come under intense pressure to shift its long-held opposition to spending public funds on the 'manufacture of weapons or munitions', with a perception Scottish ministers are turning their back on the wider defence industry. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It is understood Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, who also holds the economy brief, is keen for a rethink on her government's and her party's position. The Prime Minister visited the BAE shipyard in Govan earlier this month to announce his strategic defence review, with an ambition to 'build a fighting force that is more integrated, more ready, more lethal than ever' and 'innovate and accelerate innovation to a wartime pace'. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during a visit to BAE Systems in Govan, Glasgow, to launch the strategic defence review. Picture: Andy Buchanan/PA Wire Sir Keir also stressed he was 'using this moment to drive jobs and investment', including six new munitions factories and 1,000 new jobs. The Faslane submarine facility on the Clyde will receive £250m of investment as part of a UK government boost announced in Chancellor Rachel Reeves's spending review. Row over welding investment Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Last month, it emerged the economic development agency, Scottish Enterprise, refused to support plans for a new specialist welding centre over fears it could be used to support the building of Royal Navy submarines. Ferguson Marine, which SNP ministers nationalised in 2019, has taken on contracts to construct Royal Navy vessels. The Scottish National Investment Bank, set up by SNP ministers in 2020, 'does not invest in organisations that are primarily engaged in the manufacture of munitions or weapons'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former SNP MP Stewart McDonald, who spent almost five years as the party's defence spokesperson at Westminster from 2017 to 2022, has warned 'the party needs to have a defence debate again'. Speaking to The Scotsman, he said: 'It hasn't had a proper defence debate since 2012 when we changed the policy on Nato. 'All of this is moving at such pace. The entire international picture is moving at such a rapid pace and if we are a party that seeks to be an independent state - and an independent state in Nato and the EU - then we should have stuff to say on this.' Former SNP defence spokesperson Stewart McDonald Mr McDonald warned 'there is a risk the party falls behind in that debate'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'That's a debate that is going on in capitals all across Europe. And although Edinburgh is not a state capital, the Scottish Government has a role to play as a domestic partner. SNP's 'awkward' defence stance 'We have an industry in Scotland worth many billions of pounds, employs somewhere between 33,000 and 35,000 people and it has a very awkward relationship with the Scottish Government - it has done so for a very long time.' Mr McDonald has suggested Mr Swinney should gather the major and smaller defence employers in Scotland, 'get the defence procurement minister up from London and say 'how do I marshal the resources of the government, spending, policy, legislative, to better support this industry?'.' READ MORE: BAE Systems funding provides 300 jobs boost for Scottish shipyards Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The former SNP MP added: 'At a time of heightened international conflict, Scotland's defence industry has a part to play. 'I understand there's a bit of political balancing to be done here, but I think that can be over-thought and over-egged. We do live in much more dangerous times and there's a risk we are just saying the same stuff we've been saying for a long time - and that just would not be credible to stand still politically as the entire world changes around you.' Mr McDonald branded the Scottish Enterprise ban on investments relating to munitions 'a stupid policy' and hit out at the restrictions in place for the Scottish National Investment Bank. He said: 'Defence is the one industry that has enormous growth happening in it right now and that's not likely to end time soon. So why should our National Investment Bank not invest in it? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'It's entirely normal in every other country in Europe or the world for your national institutions to support your national interests, including your national security interests. So why is the Scottish National Investment Bank not doing that? I think that's mad.' Vanguard-class submarine HMS Vigilant, one of the UK's four nuclear warhead-carrying submarines, at HM Naval Base Clyde at Faslane | PA Asked whether the SNP needs to revisit whether it opposes Trident, Mr McDonald warned opening up that debate 'would just be self-indulgent' and 'would just say the same thing it's always said'. He said: 'I think it could better focus its attention on other parts of the defence discussion. The reality is it can't move Trident off the Clyde. 'There are areas they can focus on and have genuine positive consequences - working with industry around development of skills. The defence industry really felt that after Brexit.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Labour Glasgow MSP Paul Sweeney, who before entering politics was an arm reservist and Clyde shipbuilder, has branded the SNP's position "really frustrating'. Mr Sweeney first came up against a brick wall trying to encourage Rolls Royce to use Scotland to manufacture small modular nuclear reactors. There was opposition to such a move, even if the reactors weren't being used in Scotland where there is a de-facto ban on nuclear power stations being built due to the SNP's hostility to the technology. 'Bizarre' SNP position Mr Sweeney acknowledged the Scottish Government had previously supported defence industries in Scotland. But he has been left aghast at the decision to block investment in the welding facility. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'I found the decision of Scottish Enterprise to indicate to Rolls Royce that they would not be able to support grant funding for the naval welding facility extremely bizarre. Labour MSP Paul Sweeney | Supplied 'It's clearly on the back of pressure over comments made by the former first minister Humza Yousaf. There was a recent debate at the Scottish Parliament by the Greens on this stuff.' Mr Sweeney added: 'It's a misnomer to conflate foreign policy issues with domestic security and defence requirements. 'There is a logical absurdity of suggesting that this is about defence exports to unsavoury regimes, when it's primarily about our domestic national security and defence in the context of a pretty fraught geopolitical situation. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'I find the context of this somewhat delusional and frustrating. I think it's fair to say there's certainly a split within the SNP about this.' The MSP insisted that BAE Systems on the Clyde, where he previously worked, 'has no involvement with any regime suspected of human rights abuses', adding 'there's no association with the Israel-Palestine issue'. Protesters form a blockade outside BAE Systems in Govan Picture: Jane Barlow/PA Wire Mr Sweeney said: 'They do not issue vessels for export to those territories - they never have. There is no obvious connection. 'It's also deeply reckless rhetoric in the context of the need to expand the Royal Navy and expand our domestic shipbuilding programme.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Glasgow MSP warned the Scottish Government's opposition 'creates a problem for investment in Scotland that doesn't exist anywhere else in the UK'. He said: 'There's a nervousness about Scotland - there's a more volatile risk of being caught on the horns of a political argument.' Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Jamie Greene has penned a letter to the Deputy First Minister, Ms Forbes, insisting 'the Scottish Government must also play its part in realising that economic potential' of the defence sector. Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes | PA He added: 'That means creating the right environment for jobs and investment as well as tackling obstacles that could otherwise dampen those opportunities. At the moment there are worrying gaps in Scotland's skills pipeline.' Norwegian potential Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad BAE Systems are building Type 26 frigates for the Royal Navy including HMS Belfast and HMS Birmingham in Govan. More investment could be on its way to the Govan shipyard, with the Norwegian government reportedly keen to purchase Type 26 frigates. Defence Secretary John Healey has told MPs he has 'been working hard to persuade the Norwegians' about taking on the frigates. In response to parliamentary questions, Ms Forbes, in an apparent acknowledgment of the benefits to the economy, has stressed the 'potential industrial and employment opportunities for Scotland are significant' if Norway does press ahead with Clyde-built frigates. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She said: 'Officials from the UK and Scottish governments have held constructive informal discussions around how the bid might be best supported.' A Scottish Government source suggested SNP ministers 'want to move on it', but are wrestling with how to 'manage it within the party'. The insider added: 'Some people find it exasperating and peculiar. It's just a bit out of place now in the new reality we are in.' When the Scottish Enterprise row emerged earlier this month, Mr Swinney told journalists he was sticking to his guns. He said: 'We have a policy position on the use of Scottish public expenditure for the manufacture of munitions. We apply that consistently and that remains the Government's position.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But speaking on the Holyrood Sources podcast this week, he opened the door to a change of heart, stating that 'issues can be reconsidered'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store