17 October 2003
As launches go, the unveiling of the draft Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Employers' Organisation pay and workforce strategy for councils was more Titanic than QEII.
But the sinking feeling that the EO experienced upon realising that its senior partner and co-author had not rubber-stamped the policy document, posted briefly on the EO's website last week, has now abated.
The ODPM still considers the strategy 'unpublished' – the department asked the EO to remove it from public view on October 8 – but the local government grapevine being what it is, there are few interested parties who do not have a copy.
Trade unions responded quickly to the strategy and, anticipating an official launch soon, local government chief executive representatives this week aired their views on this latest addition to the skills and pay debate.
The document, as described by the EO, attempts to ensure that councils have the 'right number of people in the right places with the right skills to deliver improved services across all aspects of local government'. It is designed to help authorities meet their public service agreements.
It reflects the EO's submission to the Local Government Pay Commission, which is due to publish its report on pay, recruitment and retention problems later this month.
Last week, ministers denied that they had pre-empted the findings of the independent LGPC by setting policy before the commission reports. But even a cursory glance at the strategy document indicates it is very much Whitehall's view of the way forward for councils.
One senior local government figure told Public Finance: 'While it is not a prescriptive declaration of how councils should behave, it is a very clear statement of intent on the part of the ODPM.'
The biggest indication, the source claimed, is the underlying message that there will be no extra Whitehall cash to pay for future improvement initiatives.
All sides agree, however, that there is something for everyone in the strategy. The question is, will it be enough for everyone?
The ODPM/EO outline five areas where 'even if money were no object, there would be major challenges for local government in ensuring that the people it employs can deliver improved services'.
These include developing leadership capacity and the skills of the workforce, and resourcing and rewarding staff.
Notably, the document outlines ministers' plans to encourage wider use of performance-related pay for chief executives to prevent accusations that 'fat cat' salaries have spread to the public sector.
The EO's executive director, Charles Nolda, is known to oppose the roll-out of PRP. David Clark, general secretary of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace), also has reservations. 'The history of PRP is a chequered one. For local government executives, it raises more questions than answers. What is "performance" and how do you measure it? Is it your CPA score, for example? That can be manipulated, so it proves little about performance,' he says.
He adds that the 'obsession' with chief executive pay is ill-considered, arguing: 'Some authorities pay more to their finance directors and other officers, so there must be a focus on sensible pay deals across all council posts.'
And he is critical of ministers' endorsement of a national pay bargaining structure – viewed by sources at the EO as 'a sop to the unions'.
Gordon Brown would like to see wider use of regional pay settlements across the public services, but the strategy document claims '[councils'] pay structures and negotiations operate most effectively within the stability provided by a national framework'.
Not so, counters Clark. 'Local variations can be very positive. In the case of social work, chronic regional variations mean it is easy to recruit personnel in Cornwall, but not in London. Regional pay flexibility would work well in that instance.'
Finally, Clark says Solace has concerns over ODPM/EO recommendations for training and developing staff – also a concern of trade unions. He explains: 'Government policy has forced scarce council resources on to the front line in recent years.
'It means trouble on the training and development issue, because their short-term fixes have diverted attention away from long-term investment in a cadre of talented managers and staff – and not just at chief executive level. Calling for better T&D is a start, but we need investment to follow.'
The strategy that began life following a Titanic-style blunder is certainly going to need careful steering through choppy waters.
PFoct2003
