War or peace: the Conservatives and public sector reform

 

29th October 2009

The IPA’s seminar at Conservative party conference brought together shadow ministers, opinion formers and practitioners to discuss what relationship a future Conservative government might have with the public sector workforce.

Here, two of the seminar contributors, Jonathan Baume of the FDA and John Tizard from the Centre for Public Sector Partnerships, set out their thoughts.

Jonathan Baume

War or peace? The answer is – I don’t know. But I firmly believe that peace, even if uneasy, is in the national interest if the Conservative party wins a majority. There are six steps that might help to avoid war.

Firstly, the Conservative government must be seen to respect Britain’s public services. They are our police, armed forces, medical staff, tax inspectors, teachers and our local government – much of it now led by the Conservative party. And it’s our national museums and galleries, our local parks. These are the common services, the common spaces, that underpin the private sector and our quality of life. An effective public sector is necessary in any modern industrial democracy. The argument about the role that the private or voluntary sectors may play in delivering such services is secondary.

Secondly, a Conservative government should rethink the framework within which public servants, particularly managers, have to operate. Public servants must have their professionalism and discretion restored. There is certainly a role for national goals and frameworks, but the sheer extend of regulation and targets has been debilitating.

Learn the lessons, retain what works, but trust public servants to get on with their jobs, and be prepared to let go. The last thing an NHS Secretary of State needs is for his office to reverberate to the sound of bedpans falling in Tredegar.

Thirdly, a Conservative government should be honest about its vision for public services and the public sphere. We all know that the next decade will be enormously difficult. The government has lost control of public finances and real pain will inevitably result, but the taxpayers and public servants need to understand where the Government is trying to get to. And that mustn’t be endless salami slicing.

Fourthly, engage with public servants. A critical mistake of the Blair government in the late 1990s was to ignore the need to engage with, and motivate public servants who were so critical to delivering the reforms Tony Blair envisaged. David Cameron must learn from that mistake: Share the vision and avoid knee-jerk, ill considered changes to pensions - there are no quick wins or short term savings, so if change is necessary, considered dialogue is essential.

Fifthly, engage with public sector trade unions. It may not be easy to start with. Of course many public sector unions would prefer a Labour government. But the majority are not politically affiliated, and even the affiliated ones are usually pragmatic organisations which want to work with the elected politicians.

A Conservative government should also remember that the unions can play an important role in delivering change, as well as protecting staff who feel vulnerable, and in resolving the day to day problems that emerge in any workplace – public or private.

The unions may rebuff the chance for engagement, but Conservative ministers should at least try. The unions will then have no-one but themselves to blame.

Finally, there is a challenge for the unions and for the public sector workers themselves. Unions must respect the democratic mandate of an elected government, and public servants have to accept the role that managers must play in helping deliver the programme of elected politicians.

That does not mean that every public servant has the same interests as their senior managers or politicians. But the role of unions is to help reconcile those differences. And Ministers should look past the political extremists active in some unions to the individual members who are the committed public servants delivering key services.

Remember also that union reps are volunteers, often in their own time, and that unions are perhaps the largest facilitators of volunteering in the country. This is an approach that is at the centre of the Conservative tradition, and one that the party should respect.

So there is a challenge for both government, and for the unions and public servants themselves. For better or worse, we cannot continue as we are in the public services. Change is inevitable and often necessary.

It is in the national interest to foster engagement and dialogue, and for mutual respect of the different interests and concerns. We need peace. That way we can all serve the taxpayers who elect us and fund our salaries.

Jonathan Baume is General Secretary of the FDA union

John Tizard

This has to be the wrong question for anyone seeking effective public service reform under a prospective Conservative Government.

Experience and evidence tell us very clearly that major reform and change within any industry, and especially the public services, requires as much co-operation as possible between management and employees, and their trade unions. 

If a Conservative Government is elected with a mandate to reduce the size of the state and to reform public services it would be well advised to consider how best to engage the workforce and their unions in the key decisions necessary to implement policy.  The workforce and trade unions, whilst understandably and rightly wanting to defend their own interests – and possibly the wider interests of service users – will have to judge the democratic legitimacy of proposed changes.  Parliamentary majorities and council administrations cannot simply be opposed because their policies are not supported by employees.

Ideally there will be opportunities for dialogue, consultation and engagement.  There could be political opposition from a public service workforce and its unions to a policy decision - this is right and proper in any democracy - but this should not constrain any party from engaging in the planning and implementation of policy.

If there is a Conservative Government next summer inevitably there will be tensions between it and some public service employees and their trade unions.  Major and swiftly pursued reductions in expenditure could lead to redundancies and job losses. Public service reform could require new work practices and in some cases changes to terms and conditions.

However, any Government would be ill advised to impose, rather than to seek to negotiate changes. This may not always be the case, but evidence from the public and private sectors tells us that engagement is usually more profitable. 

It would also be a mistake to ignore the views and ideas of front line staff when considering service redesign or efficiency programmes. Often front line staff have a much better knowledge of the detail of delivery and resource use than their senior policy and management colleagues.  Ownership of a solution is preferable to the imposition of what may or may not be a practical proposal. 

Any incoming Conservative Government – and indeed any Government – would be well advised not to rush to deregulate practices relating to the impact on staff of contracting and outsourcing.  Most serious, high quality contractors value the workforce that transfers to them on winning a contract.  They wish to encourage those staff to move to their new employer as easily and as painlessly as possible.  Measures such as TUPE protection which would be difficult to remove from the UK statute book, given its EU pedigree, and the “2 tier” code are supported by most reputable private sector public service providers.  A new Government could promote employee co-operatives to deliver public services and require employee equity schemes for contracted services.

A new government would do well to learn the lessons from previous public sector reform drives. We now know that bargain basement shopping usually produces poor unsustainable delivery; and in an industry where 80% or so of costs are labour related, low ball bidding and contracting will lead to bad employment practices and conditions which in turn are not conducive to quality outcomes. 

That is not to say that there is no scope to improve productivity; to introduce new work practices and sometimes terms and conditions and to eliminate unnecessary expenditure. Given the public finances over the next five or more years this will be very much the case, as it should be even in a period of fiscal expansion.

Whoever forms the next government, the public service agenda is likely to lead to more personalisation of services and a greater plurality of service providers from the public, third, social enterprise and business sectors.  This agenda will require greater empowerment of front line staff, enhanced development programmes and more fluidity of employment between the public sector agencies and between those agencies and the other sectors. There is a strong case for a new Government to consider how it might agree to a public service employment framework which facilitates this fluidity – but not to fossilise practice based on any one sector’s experience or policy.  This would be a bold move and, whilst it may seem counter-intuitive for a Conservative Government, it could be a key to radical public service reform.



John Tizard is Director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships, University of Birmingham