NIPSA's submission to the DoE. I would wish to draw your attention to the references made as to the potential impact on various staffing matters.
I am setting out here the response of NIPSA, Northern Ireland’s largest trade union, to the above consultation. NIPSA is the biggest trade union in local government, representing just under 4,000 local government employees across the 11 Councils.
The comments below relate to the paragraph numbers used in the consultation document:
Purpose of the Consultation Document
Para No
- I would refer you to previous NIPSA submissions over these last few years on a range of DOE consultations covering performance improvement.
- Two issues arise; firstly the ongoing development and implementation of the existing structural changes for each of the eleven Councils and the impact this has for service delivery.
Secondly, against the continuing backdrop of austerity and in particular significant cuts in central government funding along with continued below inflation level rises in the rates it is delusional to even contemplate that there is the potential for service delivery improvement.
Annex A – Guidance For Local Government Performance Improvement
Para No
- The standards need to be consistent across the Councils if part of the purpose is to be able to make comparative assessments between the eleven Councils.
- The improvement for the “sustainable quality of life and environment” is dependent upon very many variables, most of which do not fall within the control of Councils.
- The Community Plan is also dependent upon many other players, mainly central government departments and their NDPBs eg HSC Trusts. Given the continued austerity agenda of the NI Executive as per the NI Assembly 2016/17 budget and the likelihood of a post 2016 Executive Programme for Government tied into a punitive four year 2017/18 – 2020/21 austerity budget there can be little if any hope for improved public service delivery. It is more likely that over the 5 year period we will continue to witness the decline of our public services.
- With the continuing development structures post RPA and the financial backdrop it is likely that the number of service delivery points will be reduced. This will create both unfairness as to access and severe staffing difficulties.
- There is a contradiction between “ongoing efficiency” and for example “service availability” (see para 12 above). This could be particularly so in respect of the location of services, it also highlights the distinction between “efficiency” and the effective delivery of services.
- See comments above in respect of para 10 of Annex A.
- See comments above in respect of para 1 of Annex A.
- There is a significant failing not to have included the trade unions representing Council staff, especially as service delivery mainly falls to local government employees to deliver.
On a wider dimension Local Trades Councils (trade union bodies) should be included.
- his re-enforces the point made about the need for common standards.
- See comments above in respect of para 1 of Annex A.
- Amend “may be published” to must be published.
- I would refer you to the comments submitted by NIPSA on the draft Local Government Audit Code of Practice.
- There must be consultation/negotiation with TUS on any potential staffing implications.
- As with 66 above, this is especially so in the event of any proposed transfer of functions to a NICS Department.
Bumper Graham
Assistant General Secretary