At a time when it is reported that local authorities and other public sector bodies are planning dramatic reductions in their workforces and as claims are made that Total Place could save the public purse over £20bn, it is time to consider the workers.
The evidence suggests that there has been little engagement of the workforce and the trade unions in the national Total Place pilots. In part, this is a result of the tight timescales but also, perhaps more worryingly, because Total Place has been considered a technocratic matter by many people.
While one can argue about the wisdom of reducing public expenditure, and the scale and timing of such reductions, surely few would argue that those employed to deliver public services should be excluded from the debate. I know from my involvement as an advisor to one of the national Total Place pilots that frontline staff have much to contribute to the understanding of services and the potential to redesign to achieve better outcomes.
It is essential that public agencies involve their staff and their representatives in the difficult budget commissioning and decommissioning decisions that lie ahead. They will be able to identify opportunities and also to foresee unintended consequences of decisions planned. It is equally important that employees and their unions are willing to engage to find ways of improving productivity and performance, as well as saving avoidable expenditure.
The Total Place pilots have identified significant opportunities to redesign services focused on users and communities rather than provider institutions. There is scope to eliminate duplication, co-locate staff from various agencies and do things in a smarter fashion. These changes, if enacted, will impact on the workforce.
There may be requirements for fewer people in certain roles. There will be a need for new skills and a different skill balance in the public service workforce. There will be more integrated teams drawing staff from a range of public, third and business sector employers. Staff are likely to be employed on different terms and conditions, experience different levels of empowerment and, potentially, have different professional qualifications and standards of qualification. They will also be subject to different performance management regimes. Discussions and agreements on handling these matters should be undertaken urgently and usually locally.
Where the public sector decides to procure services from the business or third sectors there should be no return to the days of compulsory competitive tendering when, often in the race to lowest price, wages and terms and conditions were slashed. The result was an unvalued workforce and poorer quality of service. At a time when the aim is for higher quality outcomes there must be quality employment rights and conditions for all delivering those outcomes.
If we are serious about creating value-for-money and user-focused services, these issues cannot be ignored. However, there is a real opportunity to ensure that staff are able to plan the changes, be supported during the change, and have access to training and development programmes to enable them to maximise their contribution and switch roles as appropriate. Staff should be supported to establish co-operatives and other service delivery models when and if they wish to pursue such approaches.
There would be merit in Total Place projects identifying an element of the savings that could be secured, and investing this in their staff. There is equally a strong case for ensuring that staff and their representatives are able to contribute to wider strategic decision making.
In advocating a greater respect for and engagement of the workforce in these matters, it is important that we do not lose sight of the interests of the user, the community and society. This is not a call for the triumph of producer interests but it is a call for fairness and a pragmatic realisation that, without a motivated and skilled workforce, public services cannot serve their users.
John Tizard is director of the CPSP@LGIU
