Pledge not to axe Scots civil service jobs faces stern test

Published on Wednesday 23 September 2009 21:37

CIVIL servants in Scotland have been largely protected from the effects of job cuts compared with their counterparts in Whitehall.

Finance secretary John Swinney gave an assurance to the unions that there will be no compulsory redundancies during the period of the current spending review. The commitment has been described as being "unique to Scotland", but is it a policy that can continue during the current economic climate?

The draft budget published last week by the Scottish Government makes it clear that some tough choices will be need to be made over the next few years as the SNP administration tries to cope with the first real cuts in public expenditure since devolution.

With the cost of wages and salaries making up such a large proportion of the public-sector bill, it is inevitable that many jobs will be in line for the axe even if the impact is softened by natural wastage schemes and offers of attractive financial packages.

The future of jobs in the Scottish civil service has been called into question by the decision of the Permanent Secretary at the Scottish Government, Sir John Elvidge, to carry out an "effectiveness and affordability" review of the current shape and working practices across the Scottish Government and all its agencies.

Called Shaping Up, the review will take a detailed look at the way civil servants serve their political masters. Sir John points out in a review document issued to staff that some radical and important changes to the way civil servants work have been made since devolution. He believes this is the right time to build on that success by identifying the opportunities for further major changes.

The Permanent Secretary adds: "We're also facing the test of a significant reduction in public spending which gives the review added focus and urgency. For ministers to protect important policies and programmes in Scotland we will have to spend less money on running the business. We are therefore going to look at how we are currently organised and resourced and ask ourselves whether that fits with the new approach to government in Scotland and if it is the most affordable and effective way of delivering our priorities from now on."

It is clear from the document and various other internal papers issued to civil servants, including one setting out a series of questions and answers, that the review, on the face of it, is not specifically about cutting jobs, but the categorical assurance Sir John has attempted to give will not be enough to satisfy the unions.

Last week, as the Scottish Parliament was being given details of the government's 35 billion draft budget, Eddie Reilly, secretary of the main civil service union, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) hit out at the review, describing it "as a vehicle for unprecedented cuts to jobs and services for the first time since devolution".

He added: "There is only one conclusion. This review is not about shaping up but is about shipping out. It is the beginning of public servants and public services in Scotland paying the price for the banking crisis and the recession.

"The sole purpose of trade union engagement in this process will be to defend our members' jobs and the services they deliver. We will fight for the priorities of the people, not the greed of bankers."

The comments have angered Sir John. "I want to say plainly that this review is not about cuts," he told Saltire TV, the Scottish Government's internal television service. Departing from his customary cautious and moderate style of language, he declared: "The budget is a separate issue and I feel personally insulted that the unions would suggest that I would deliberately lie to people in the organisation and mislead them."

He went on: "If all we wanted to do was make cuts, we wouldn't start entering into a review of this kind. We'll adjust to the budget realities whatever they are, but that's a separate process from this review. If the review helps us to do that better then that's fine, but that's an added bonus, not the main purpose of the review."

If job cuts are not the consequence of Shaping Up, the unions can have genuine fears about the impact of the Scottish Government's spending plans which are being cut in real terms by 268 million or 0.9 per cent – according to ministers this is due to a 500m reduction in what was expected from the UK government.

Union sources have told their members, however, that the Elvidge review "is nothing other than a massive cuts agenda which will affect staff right across the Scottish Government". One source said: "This review will decide who and what stays and who and what goes. No-one should be in any serious doubt that this is the most serious challenge we have faced since devolution."

The reaction suggests that the Scottish Government may be heading for a winter of conflict with the unions. The jobs issue is a problem that will also extend to local government. At this week's meeting of the local government committee of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish council leaders warned of serious budget cuts ahead because of a "much bleaker" outlook for public spending. The body that represents councils, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said efficiency savings alone would not make up for smaller budgets in the future.

Sir John will find it difficult to separate his review from the wider agenda of the future of civil service jobs in Scotland as the impact of budget cuts begin to bite over the next few years.

The unions may have over-reacted to a review that is mainly about efficiency and methods of working, but there is one sting in the tail in the question and answer document that should perhaps cause them some genuine concern.

The answer to the question "will there be job losses?" refers to the Scottish Government's commitment to no compulsory redundancies during the period of the current spending review and it adds that this is a major commitment which is unique to Scotland.

However, it warns: "It is not possible to predict whether this commitment will extend beyond the current spending review."

That, at the very least, underlines uncertainty about the future.