Union criticises plans for neighbouring councils to share services
UNION leaders have strongly criticised costcutting proposals for two Scottish councils to devolve control over vital services that they fear could become a model adopted across the country if successful.
Unison has presented a report to senior managers in Stirling and Clackmannanshire Councils which they say raised “grave concerns” about the plans for just one of them to have complete control of education or social care services.
The moves described as the “preferred option” in council papers would see Clackmannanshire Council’s education services run from Stirling, and Stirling Council’s social care services from Clackmannanshire.
The union fears a raft of redundancies. If the moves are rubberstamped, it means staff would be transferred between authorities. This would involve staff who provide direct services, such as social workers, care assistants, teachers and learning assistants as well as support staff.
The two councils first agreed to cooperate to deliver education and social services in December 2010, when heads of the departments became vacant at the same time.
The councils decided to share heads of education and social services following the sharing proposal. However the councils retained control over policy and service levels in their own areas.
Unison say that is all expected to change, leading to “grave concerns” about the future of public services in Stirling and Clackmannanshire.
Unison’s report is based on a survey of 331 staff from both councils in which views were sought on what was called a “lead council model” for shared services between Clackmannanshire and Stirling Councils.
Unison said those staff surveyed said the proposals will result in a “poorer service with potential for serious consequences” and services will “continue to deteriorate”.
Pam Robertson, Unison’s Clackmannanshire branch secretary, said “Staff think these proposals will cause confusion for the public, that services will be less accounta ble to the public, and that local jobs will be lost. Council services are complicated enough to navigate and many of the people we serve are vulnerable and in need of care. They will not cope well with a change like this.”
Lorraine Thomson, Unison’s Stirling local government branch secretary added: “We have looked across the world to see where this type of reform has been tried before and the concerns raised by our staff are exactly what has happened elsewhere. It creates confusion, has no accountability, local jobs are lost and it ends up costing council taxpayers more for worse services.”
In a joint statement the councils’ chief executives, Elaine McPherson (Clackmannanshire) and Stewart Carruths (Stirling), said: “We are looking at different options and will continue to engage with all stakeholders as part of that process.
“We respect the staff views expressed in this survey, but are disappointed conclusions seem to have been reached while the work on the business case is ongoing.”
Plans by two Scottish councils to work together to save money will lead to confusion and harm vulnerable people, according to public sector Unison. But that can only be the case if it is assumed that the strategy is implemented incompetently.
The suggestion is that each council becomes the “lead” for a key service. Clackmannanshire would run social care services for both councils, while education services for both would be delivered from Stirling.The history of shared services in Scotland’s councils is not encouraging. Plans for eight Clyde Valley councils to run many services jointly foundered when South Lanarkshire, Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire pulled out.
East Lothian and Midlothian had planned to merge many departments but have reduced the scope and pace of their plans. Even Stirling and Clackmannanshire’s “lead provider” approach was first announced more than two years ago.
Perhaps the union is right to err on the side of pessimism. But Unison’s concerns, based on a survey of staff, are speculative. The union’s members claim that once the “lead provider” scheme is up and running, the public will not know who provides their services or how to find out whether they are entitled to help. This will be so only if the arrangement is badly handled or explained. But that is more an argument for good planning and communications. The same applies to the complaint that council staff would be “confused” about which policies to follow from which council. It need not be the case if the councils explain sensibly to employees what is happening.
A third claim that people will be confused over who provides their services achieves a double whammy of assuming the worst about both the councils and the public. Members of the public do not need to be patronised about such matters and many will see the common sense in reducing a duplication of costs for each council.
Indeed, the developments at Stirling and Clackmannanshire are surely an indication of the shape of things to come. Councils facing drastic spending cuts, as we know. Some need to repeat savings achieved over the past five to seven years, but this time over the next two. Many English councils have already made savings twice the size of those proportionately achieved by their Scottish counterparts.
Maintaining separate services within a council the size of Clackmannanshire has long seemed a luxury but the wider case for shared services may become unanswerable. Is there any reason why a relatively uniform service such as education should not see much of its administration run on a national basis, for instance? Scotland’s police and fire services have been brought together under single bodies to achieve savings and efficiencies. Local political accountability must maintained and, where there are genuine concerns about the impact on frontline services, unions should make their case. But they must also be willing to play their part in finding solutions to the challenging times ahead.