Letter to Richard Slack

press index
Letter to Richard Slack Richard Slack and I were the main opponents of the rate increasing philosophy agreed by the Labour Party prior to the 1986 election. Richard was a lot more influential than I was. Even so we did not succeed. In the run up to the 62% rate increase, Richard got put into an impossible position. I was trying to help him out. Evidently I didn't help very much.

Dear Richard,

You seem to have a mystical, quasi religiousview of professionals. This is probably because you are notone. I am a professional (a journalist) and as an editor Icontrol the work of other professionals (in house staff andfreelance contributors). Professionals often differ in theirviews. They differ for all sorts of reasons (often economic)but no view ever prevails for long. Professional positionsare fashionable. The medical profession, for example, haseven been redefining the hypocratic oath of late.

It is not useful to look at a professional as a fount ofindependent wisdom. A better way is to look at the exampleof barristers. Two barristers will stand up in court andadvocate entirely contradictory positions. Admittedly theirprofessional skill is the skill of the advocate and does notnecessarily lie in what they say in any particular case. Butthe example does tend to illustrate the old adage that whoeverpays the piper calls the tune. A professional (certainly ajournalist) is like a loaded gun. It is the person who pointsthe gun and pulls the trigger who is responsible for whathappens and not the journalist (or professional).

For example, last night I saw a piece on the BBC news (alwaysa third rate news programme) about Flouro carbons. I was quiteimpressed with this item because it trotted out most of theold familiar arguments (they mentioned the hole in the ozonelayer over Antarctica but forgot the one that's supposed toexist over Nova Scotia). Even so it presented a scary picture.However, the whole effect was ruined when it said that theproposal was to contain emissions of flouro carbons at presentlevels or only allow a small increase in future years.

This is an issue in which the Government has been caught withits pants down (it published a report which said there's noneed to worry chaps then some of the scientists involved inthe report got so annoyed that they said "oh yes there is"),Yet the journalists contrived to use the evidence of theenvironmentalists to support the Government position (noincrease in emissions but no need for a major decrease).

You could blame the professionals but I think it would bemore reasonable to blame their paymasters (the Governmentcontrolled BBC).

Professionals are there to be used. They are experts (or aresupposed to be experts'—but like Rumpole of the Bailey oneoften feels they have forgotten all the law or whatever theyever knew) and as experts may be able to suggest the pitfallsyou may fall into if you follow a particular course of action.But they should no more be in control of the direction theyare heading in than teachers should be able to suddenly decidethey want to teach Serbo Croat to primary schools or plannersshould be able to adopt to different standards for Chingfordcompared to Leyton.

If it were not so how could avowed socialists and trade unionistswork for the Daily Telegraph. They do.

Turning to privatisation. You say that this is a cheap way of importing management. I doubt it. It is possible to conceive that some of our waste officers are working for us becausethey genuinely have an interest in the challenges of waste.It is actually a quite complicated subject and can be fascinating.However, no one will ever convince me that a contractor willbid for the bin rounds for any reason other than the pursuitof financial gain. What's wrong with that you may say. Well,the way to maximise financial gain is to single mindedly pursuethe objective of making the service cost the minimum whileat the same time maximising payment. The service can be madeto cost less in a number of ways. Firstly you can buy bettermachinery (this is a possibility---but in our case would notsave much), you can get the workers to do more work, and youcan cut corners endangering health and safety and just plainbreaking the law. The way a contractor would actually achievea combination of these ends would be to give the workers afinancial incentive. This incentive could work in two waysbonus or part ownership of the business (sub-contracting particular rounds). Improved management would probably mean givingpeople an incentive to do a job profitably and imposing financialpenalties on them if they do not do so.

Evidence for this can be found by attending unfair dismissaltribunals. People do not get sacked for being bad at theirjob. Private industry is just as likely to allow a pooroperative to remain a post as the council is. In all mytime as a union activist (about 15 years) I can not rememberanyone even being disciplined for being bad at their job.The private sector does not manage any better than the councildoes.

Case studies:95% of North London Waste Authority transportis contracted to the private sector. Why? We do an awful lotof transport, surely if any public authority could beat theprivate sector NLWA could? We couldn't. NLWA manages itsdrivers. We lay down permissible routes (along major highways)which apply equally to our drivers and the contracted drivers.Our drivers use them, contracted drivers take short cuts downback streets. If an NLWA driver arrives somewhere and hasto wait for a load he just waits (why shouldn't he) but acontracted driver makes sure his vehicle gets loaded. NLWAmaintains its vehicles properly and the drivers mostly obeythe law. Contractors vehicles are probably part owned by thedriver and no one really cares what he does.

Is it more important to provide the service cheaply (and therefore avoid the possibility of other services being cut) than it is to make sure that the service is provided legitimately?

Case study Number 2. Barking Hospital. The cleaners at BarkingHospital became something of a cause celebre because they wenton strike against their private sector employer at a timewhen the whole issue of privatising hospital workers, wasfashionable. In fact, the Barking cleaners had been workingfor a private firm for 20 years or more. What they were upsetabout was that their miserable pay was going to be reducedeven further because their hours of work were being decreased.They said, and I believe them, that the job could not be doneproperly.

This highlights another problem. Many health service contractors have defaulted on their contracts---but usually for financial reasons. None that I've ever heard of has been thrown off a job for not doing it properly. And this is because it is a hard thing to decide to abandon a contract and seek new tenders. What does one do in the meantime? How does one find the resources to pay for the new contracting exercise (it costs a lot of money)? In practice if a job is being done 10% worse than the specification the contractor will get away with it. If it is being done 25% worse the contractor may still get away with a ticking off. Contractors know this and so they hardly ever provide the service they say they will provide. If threatened with removal at the end of contract period and replacement by another firm the industry usually responds by a series of mergers and take overs which leaves the authorities (DHAs or councils) with little if any choice.

Case study No 3. Leytonstone House. Contracting can end inwork being done by in house teams but more efficiently. Takethe ladies of the cleaning department at Leytonstone House.They put in a bid which in commercial terms was suicidallytoo low. Their bid was about £40,000 while the lowest privatebid was over £70,000. I was on the panel which interviewedthem. We kept trying to pick holes in their contract so theywould raise the price a bit. They kept on thinking we weretrying to shake them so we could get the private sector in.As a result these cleaners will now have to work very muchharder for their pittance of a wages. And they will constantlyfear that their jobs are in jeopardy-"if we don't do thisproperly they will get the private sector contractors in".

Quite simply if you believe that Government has a role inlegislating conditions of work---employment protection legislation, health and safety at work or safety of lorries on the public highways-then you should not advocate privatisation.I believe council services are important but they are certainlynot the be all and end all of running a council. The councilalso employs 10,000 people and the way it employs those peoplecan have a major impact on the local labour market.

At bottom the Tories believe that greed and avarice is OKbecause money makes the world go around. It works. Its efficient.But there is a contradiction in that. The most capitalistof countries, America, is also the most litigious. If theonly aim is to make money corners will be cut. A society likethat needs a strong central Government which can lay downlaws which protect the public against the greedy capitalistwho will risk life and limb to make a quick buck. The Toriesdo not believe in strong Government. The so called blue Trotsadvocate the legalisation of heroin. They are short sightedenough to believe that the market will provide all things.In fact the real Victorian values were child prostitution,children working 14 hours a day in factories, work houses,conspicuous wealth -and just as conspicuous poverty. Victorian

liberals campaigned against these values which is why wegot state services, industrial and employment legislation.Plimsol lines were not devised because privatisation is moreefficient and manages better. They were devised because theystate recognised that it had to intervene to s1987 employersdrowning sailors.

To be charitable what you may be saying is that we have toface privatisation anyway so lets make the best of it. I agreebut I enclose a copy of the LWRA report on the Local GovernmentBill. This makes it pretty clear that the Government is notgoing to let you make the best of it.

Of course it is possible at least nominally to maintain more of the service than would otherwise be possible by privatising some of it. But the real nature of privatising a thing is that even if the company which takes over behaves in a legitimate was it will take 15% of the money you give it for overheads and profit. Most likely it will take much more* But defending employment standards is just as much a council objective as say collecting refuse.

What we should be doing is taking control of the council.In reality that is a lot easier than it sounds. A lot ofthe council officers do their own thing simply because wedon't give them a credible alternative. We don't tell themclearly what we want them to do. And more than that we don'tsit on them to make sure we understand what they are doingso that we understand the problems when we lay down the policy.Chief officers have to manage the employees but the only peoplewho can manage the chief officers is us. We simply have todo it there is no alternative. Leadership and management startfrom the 1987. And if that means challenging professionalassumptions sometimes then so be it.

What we can do as councillors is carry the people with us.It sounds like a grandiose and megalomaniac project. Yet forall the greed and baseness in our society people are basicallydecent and sociable and if we use the local press, the partyand local associations properly it is possible to make thingsjust a shade hotter for the Government in Waltham Forest,than they are at present. I agree that campaigning againstrate capping is a waste of time but campaigning for humanity,decency, fairness, justice, sociability and freedom fromfear and exploitation are not a waste of time.

-2-

1. Introduction

The Local Government Bill presently before Parliament would affect theAuthority in its provisions for the introduction of competitivetendering in respect of certain local authority activities, theprohibition of certain provisions as to non-commercial matters in localauthority contracts; restrictions on local authority publicity; andother matters.

The Bill was presented to Parliament on 26 June 1^87. Committee stagebegan in the Commons before recess, with consideration of clauses 1 and2. Proposed amendments which were considered included one put forwardby Labour members to delete this Authority from the provisions as tocompetitive tendering. This amendment was not carried.

Committee stage will resume when Parliament reassembles in the 3rd weekof October. The Bill is expected to complete its Commons stages by theend of this year, to pass to the Lords in January 1988 and to be enactedin about March 1988.

It is necessary for the Authority to decide whether, and if so how, toseek any amendment to the Bill and to consider action required to enablethe Authority to comply with its provisions when they cone into effect,assuming they do so in broadly their present form.

2. Timetable

As indicated above there are three aspects of the Bill, competition,contracts and publicity, which will significantly affect the Authority'sactivities. The provisions are expected to cone into effect as follows:

(a) competition provisions: the main provisions, relating to work foran authority which may be carried out by its own employees onlyafter competitive tendering, will come into effect on a datespecified by the Secretary of State by regulations but not before1 April 1989. (Provisions affecting authorities bidding for workwill come into effect on 1 April 1989.);

(b) contractual provisions: will come into force fourteen days afterthe Bill is enacted;

(c) publicity provisions: will come into force two months after theBill is enacted;

(d) provisions as to land held by public bodies: will in the main comeinto force two months after the Bill is enacted;

(e) provisions as to arrangements under Employment and Training Act1973: as they affect this Authority, will be deemed to have hadeffect from the date of its establishment.The details of these various provisions are considered in more detail inthe following paragraphs (3-6).

-3-

3. Provisions as to competitive tendering

(a) The activities ("defined activities") to which the Bill will applywhich appear most important to the Authority are:

(i) "collection of refuse",' i.e. household and commercial waste

(ii) "cleaning of buildings", i.e. cleaning of interior ofbuildings and of windows (other than of dwellings)

(iii) "other catering", i.e. catering (distinguished from cateringfor schools, etc) involving (A) providing ingredients for,and preparing and serving, meals; (B) providing refreshments

(iv) "repair and maintenance of vehicles" i.e. repair andmaintenance of any motor vehicle or trailer, save as regardsrepair of damage caused by an accident

(v) activities added to the present list by the Secretary ofState by an order approved by resolution by each House ofParliament.

Other activities included in the Bill's provisions which mightconcern the Authority are "other cleaning" which includes theremoval of litter from any land; and "maintenance of ground" whichincludes maintenance of grass, planting and tending all kinds ofplants (excluding landscaping) and controlling weeds.

The Bill excludes work by an employee incidental to his/her mainwork, if the main work is not a defined activity, (e.g. asecretary making tea).

It also excludes work calculated to avert, alleviate or eradicatethe effects or potential effects of an emergency or disaster (actual or potential) involving or likely to involve danger to life or health or serious damage to or destruction of property (e.g. safeguarding or clearing a major illicit deposit oraccidental spillage of toxic waste).

The Secretary of State can by order exclude authorities as regardsparticular activities on conditions, as specified by him.

Members may wish to note that police establishments are excludedfrom (ii) above and all police vehicles from (iv) above.

(b) The Bill provides that authorities ("defined authorities")including this Authority may not carry out work within the abovecategories through its own employees without complying with sixconditions. (This does not apply to work done under contract byone authority for another person or body which is dealt withseparately: see (c) below.) The conditions are:

(i) advertisement in a local newspaper and an appropriatejournal giving specified details of the proposal to invitetenders in respect of that work;

-4-

(ii) reasonable time limits and issue of a detailedspecification;

(lii) invitations to tender made to at least three of those otherthan defined authorities who sought such invitations (or toall who sought them if less than four did so) and to atleast one of the defined authorities which sought suchinvitations;

(iv) a written bid to be made by the authority through its directlabour organisation or similar organisation;

(v) a decision made by the authority in a manner not designed torestrict, distort or prevent competition;

(vi) compliance by the authority when doing the work with thedetailed specification provided for outside tenderers.

These conditions would not affect work intended to be carried outby outside contractors, as to which there will be no new statutoryprovision.

The Secretary of State will have power by regulations to adddetailed requirements to conditions (ii), (iii) and (iv).

Condition (v) would not oblige the Authority to accept the lowesttender where there were good reasons not to do so, subject to thecoercive provisions summarised in (e) and (f) below.

(c) The Bill also provides that where an authority seeks to do workwithin a defined activity for another person or body undercontract, two conditions must be complied with. These are that:

(i) either the authority tendered on the basis of an invitationmade to at least three other persons (not definedauthorities) willing to do such work or the other partyadvertised inviting offers to do the work in a localnewspaper and an appropriate journal; and

(ii) the other party did not act in a manner designed to restrict, distort or prevent competition when entering into the contract.

Contracts of this type entered into before 1 April 1989 other thanin accordance with the above principles may not be carried outthereafter.

(d) The Authority will be required from the financial year 1989/90 tokeep accounts relating to defined activities carried out under theprovisions summarised in (b) and (c) above, to produce a related

••/5

-5-

report for public inspection and, with regard to work carried outin accordance with (b) above, to supply on request statements asto the Authority's decision, outside tenders and the Authority'sbid.

(e) The Secretary of State may specify financial objectives as to workcarried out under the provisions summarised in (b) and (c) abovein which case defined authorities must ensure such objectives aremet.

(f) The Bill would empower the Secretary of State to require by noticeinformation from an authority as to suspected breaches ofprovisions summarised above and if after the date set in thenotice it still appeared to him that there had been such breacheshe could direct the authority to carry out work relating to therelevant activity in accordance with conditions or not to carryout such work. He would also be able to amend or withdraw suchdirections.4. Provisions as to Non-Commercial Considerations relating to Public Supplyor Works Contracts

(a) The Bill would oblige the Authority to exercise functions relatingto contracts for the supply of goods or materials, the supply ofservices or the execution of works entered into more than fourteendays after the Bill is enacted without reference to mattersspecified as being non-commercial matters. These functions relateto approved lists, inviting of tenders, selection of contractorsand sub-contractors and termination of contracts.

(b) The matters specified as being non-commercial matters relate to:-

(i) terms and conditions of employment of contractors1 employeesand opportunities offered to contractors' employees

(ii) whether contractors use self-employed sub-contractors

(iii) involvement of contractors with Government policy as todefence or foreign or Commonwealth policy

(iv) conduct relating to trade disputes

(v) connections with particular countries

(vi) political, industrial or sectarian interests or affiliationsof contractors or persons connected with them

(vii) the giving or withholding of financial support for anyinstitution as to which the Authority gives or withholdssupport,./6

-6-

(viii) (a provision not relevant to the Authority as to use ofservices provided by authorities under the Building Act 1984)

(ix) a matter so specified by the Secretary of State by orderapproved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(c) Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (general duty of localauthorities to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawfulracial discrimination etc by the exercise of their functions)would not enable an authority to act in conflict with theprovisions summarised above, save that nothing in those provisionswould s1987 an authority from doing something in the exercise of afunction mentioned in (a) above which related to the terms andconditions of employment of, or opportunities offered to,contractors' employees and was reasonably necessary to secure thatthe relevant function was carried out with due regard to the needto eliminate unlawful racial discrimination.

(d) When the Authority made certain decisions affecting any person asto approved lists, tenders, subcontracts and termination ofcontracts the Authority would be required forthwith to notify anyperson so affected of the decision and on request to state thereasons for it.

(e) Any existing approved list compiled by reference to non-commercialmatters would have to be compiled afresh, following publication ofnotice of the intention to do so in at least one local or nationalnewspaper and at least one newspaper or journal circulating amongpotential contractors. This would have to be done as soon asreasonably practicable after the relevant provisions came intoforce (14 days after the Bill is enacted) and in any event withinthree months of their coming into force.

(f) No payment may be required from a potential contractor forconsideration for, or inclusion in, an approved list.

(g) The duty to exercise contract functions without reference tonon-commercial matters and the duty to revise existing approvedlists will be subject to judicial review at the instance of anypotential contractor and failure to comply with those duties willbe actionable by anyone who suffers loss or damage. Requiringpayments as mentioned in (f) above will be similarly actionable.

5. Provisions as to Local Authority Publicity

The Bill would amend the Local Government Act 1986, under which localauthorities are prohibited from publishing material apparently designedto affect support for a political party and the Secretary of State isempowered to issue codes of recommended practice as to local authoritypublicity. The Bill would include among matters to be considered in,./7

-7-

deciding whether material falls within the prohibition: its content,style and likely effect, the circumstances of its publication and, asregards material forming part of a campaign, whether it promotes oropposes a point-of-view identified with a political party. In additionthe Bill would specifically require local authorities in coming to anydecision on publicity to have regard to the provisions of any codeissued by the Secretary of State under the 1986 Act.

6, Provisions as to Arrangements under the Employment and Training Act 1973

The Bill would include authorities established under the LocalGovernment Act 1985 (including this Authority) among those empowered toenter into arrangements with the Manpower Services Commission or theSecretary of State, including arrangements for education and training.