Labour LGA Conference 2024: Day 1

 

At our annual Labour Local Government Association Conference. Currently in a packed and lively training session led by Mo Baines, CEO of APSE on "How can a future Labour Government stem the tide of Section. 114?"

Mo asks why is local governemt beong treated so differently from other public service? 

Central government does not have to balance its books every single year? Why can't budgets be managed and spread over the medium term?

There are lots of good questions, answers, ideas and comments. Looking forward to rest of conference.

Community Wealth Building Seminar for Labour Councillors 21 July 2018

This well attended seminar sponsored by APSE (Association for Public Sector Excellence) of was excellent. Held in the UNISON centre (HQ) in Euston Road, London.

Speakers Paul O’Brien and Mo Baines, APSE; Neil McInroy CLES, Cllr Matthew Brown, Leader of Preston City Council and Cllr Asima Shaikh, Executive Member for Economic and Community Development, Islington Council.

Chair was Mo Baines who works for APSE but is also a UNISON branch President and member nominated representative on the Greater Manchester Local Government Pension Fund.

Paul O'Brien warned us that the "Barnet Map of Doom" could still happen - social care budgets will rise and rise and soak up all Council budgets! London local authorities depends at the moment on Council Tax for 40% of its income. In 2020 that will be 51%! (a huge problem for Councils who have failed to increase Council tax in the past even by inflation and therefore decimated their tax base)

While Neil McInroy reminded that we live a world were 5 super rich men control 50% of its wealth while workers suffer wage contraction, how we must build wealth locally and stop global capitalism from extracting wealth for the super rich.

Cllr Matthew Brown described the "Preston Model" and long, hard, slog to bring about changes following the destruction of traditional local industries and the failure of private led regeneration schemes to develop the city centre.

Cllr Asima Shaikh explained how Islington Council had won court battles over private developers who had overpaid for land and therefore claimed that they could not provide 50% social housing.

A really positive event. At the end I had a number of very constructive conversations with London Councillors about the possible role of local government pensions funds investing in social housing. Watch this space.

(Hat tip pictures Cllr Sakina Sheikh)

Beware of Shapeshifters & Outsourcery: Protecting public services and the public purse - APSE seminar

Last weekend I went to a well attended seminar for London Labour Party Councillors at the UNISON Centre in Euston Road presented by Mo Bains from APSE (Association for Public Sector Excellence).

It was an eye opener and I would recommend that all progressive Councils and Councillors should also get this alternative view of how to challenge the so called "orthodoxy" regarding cuts and privatisation before they make any final budget decisions. 

Mo reminded us that the provision of public services only came about in the first place due to massive private sector market failure.

There is little or no evidence that "the market knows best" in public services. The "savings" from privatisation of public services are often down to cuts in terms and conditions of low paid staff and more than off set by paying profits to shareholders and increased salaries to senior management. 

It seems that many private companies see the public sector as "easy meat" to rip off and defraud.  

"the National Audit Office study in 2013/2014 explored the £40BN contracts market. Of 60 contracts tested 34 found billing issues".

Public policy is not set in stone but if services are privatised and policy changes then Councils are being penalised and held to ransom if it means contracts have to be altered.

The privatisation (top down "mutalisation") of Council services into small businesses only results into a greater risk to the Council from failure and massive inefficiencies due to fragmented dis-economies of scale. Many so called former local authority "mutuals" have collapsed or staff have been forced into accepting massive pay cuts.

"Outsourcery" of public services is no panacea and can result in greater cost and a reduced service.   This is not political. More services are currently being taken back in house by Conservative Councils. 

Councils should make greater use of their expertise and resources to offer services to other councils and local businesses. They most also be prepared to make evidence based difficult decisions on the provision of services to ensure they remain in house. For example if a council runs a personal social care service 9-5pm but the users want a service in the early morning or evening then the in house service must to be changed to provide this need after full consultation with staff and the unions.

The great thing about APSE is that it is about public sector excellence and not provider interest. I would recommend that Councillors should ask for APSE to present to their Councils before decisions are made in the coming months on budgets following the savage government cuts.  There is an alternative way to protect public services and the public purse.

#UNDC13 Capital Stewardship fringe - Wednesday Evening

Picture from UNISON NDC Capital Stewardship fringe "time for members to govern their money" with UNISON national officer Colin Meech, Mo Baines from Greater Manchester Pension Fund (Chaired by NEC Jane Carolan in the middle)

Colin spoke about the need to bring the fund management of the local government pension (LGPS) fund "in-house"and stop being ripped off by City fund managers. He briefed us on the new governance arrangements of the LGPS which will probably come into effect in 2015 (we think).

Mo praised Colin for his work on pensions. He had been the first to point out why schools and hospitals use PFI to fund rebuilding when we have money elsewhere?

The Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) is worth £10 billion but it only has trade union  observers with no voting rights. The fund is looking into localised investments. It wants to build 240 homes for market rent. If you pay into a pension scheme then the area you live in should also benefit from scheme investments.

Mo said that fish always rot from the top. We should make sure that in the LGPS we change fund management from the top.

My question to both is that UNISON should consider regional networks of LGPS pension reps to encourage and give face to face support to reps? There use to be a national network of LGPS reps who actually sit on pension panels and committees, who could be consulted and give feed back on what they they need to help them carry out their duties.

Colin responded by saying there will be a national consultation forum. He warned us not to underestimate those who feed off your money. Do they want to give this up? There are huge vested interests. The LGPS has high fees plus hidden charges. You could clear pension deficits within 8 years if the LGPS was merged & you cut costs and raise performance.

UNISON NDC 2011: Protect our Pensions Fringe

On Tuesday lunch time there was a very well attended fringe on "Protecting our Pensions".  It was chaired by NEC member Steve Warwick, Roz Norman (Health service Group), Glyn Jenkins (UNISON Head of pensions)and Mo Baines (LGPS Pension rep). 
I missed the beginning.

In the Q&A I asked whether or not the true cost of past employer contribution holidays and lower than needed contributions had ever been calculated by the unions? If employers had always paid what they should have paid, what would our schemes look like now? 

I had been to a conference recently were it was asserted by a well known financial figure that £50 billion pounds had been taken (stolen says I ?) from final salary schemes due to past contribution holidays and reductions. Glyn responded by say thing he thought such a figure seemed plausible but he knows that for many years - employers paid far, fair less into schemes than employees.

My argument is of course that if the employers had paid in the traditional 10-12% of earnings into occupational pensions schemes every year for the past 30 years then things would look very different in the pension world than they do now. 

In other words many pension scheme members face now being Robert Maxwelled (aka robbed) due to the past misappropriation (theft?) of contributions?

UNISON NDC 2011: Building a Future for Public Housing

These are some of my notes from the UNISON housing fringe on Monday evening. The meeting was chaired by Heather Wakefield, Head of Local Government. Other speakers were Lord Whitty (Housing Voice) and Mo Baines (APSE). I was billed for the first time as “NEC”.

Aim: What are housing associations up to and how will they respond to government policy?

Does the so called “affordable rent” model make any sense? Is it viable? Will it work for housing associations and those seeking decent, affordable homes?

Key points Housing Associations are operating in a difficult financial environment. Almost ££50 billion of debt is held by larger housing associations (with more than a thousand homes), £18 billion will be paid through re-financing. Housing associations see re-financing as a threat, as rates on new loans are likely to be higher than those currently held.

Under the new system housing associations will get, on average, about £32k per new home, instead of £80k that they received previously. They will be expected to make the difference by charging higher rents – at 80 per cent of the market rate – and use the increase in rents to support more borrowing. The government hope that this model, based on lower grant per home but increased borrowing, will deliver 150,000 new affordable homes by 2015. Remember this is not only on new build but could be also for existing stock.

A recent survey by Inside Housing magazine suggest that while the majority of the largest associations will make bids to gov to build homes under the new system, the extra risk and borrowing is leading to associations scaling back development plans. We will know more in July, when the Homes and Communities Agency awards contracts.

It is also becoming blatantly obvious that this new funding system doesn’t work for all regions. Whilst the difference between existing social rent (which as a rule of thumb is about 50% of market rent) and an 80% of market affordable rent in the South East is in the region of £60 per week, in the Midlands and the North it ranges from about £17 to about £25. Unsurprisingly such associations aren’t likely to generate the kinds of revenue that would enable the model to work.

UNISON, as a housing union, operating in an environment in which half of the public housing is delivered by housing associations and half by local authorities and ALMOs, has to work out two sets of issues. The first set of issues are will this so called affordable rent, based on 80 per cent of market rents, will deliver more decent homes for our members and their families, and working people on low to middle incomes people more broadly.

We know from internal surveys that more of our members are in the private rented sector than the social rented sector, and that this where most people who can’t afford to buy now find themselves. Would this group of people see Affordable Rent as a better option than the private rented sector? How would it work alongside traditional social housing?

As yet we don’t the answers, but we can see problems. In London the average housing association rent on a two bedroom property is £102 per week. An Tory unaffordable rent would be £248. How many low paid workers could afford that? Clearly this is unsustainable – especially when considered alongside cuts to Local Housing Allowance. (housing benefit)

The second set of issues does the new funding system impact on the sustainability and character of housing associations as employers of our members and potential members. Can employers make the new arrangements work in a way which guarantees their survival, and the jobs of our members? Is the business model this implies one that necessarily entails a tougher environment for people at work in housing associations? We have the private sector companies claiming they could save money by managing staff and estates on behalf of housing association. Of course this will be by the slashing and burning of our terms and conditions.

Its already tough out there, with pay cuts and attacks on terms and conditions. Would this make things worse? But as well as a threat is this also an opportunity? Can we organise around this new model in a way that is appealing to housing workers?

Again its early days. The signs are that everyone is cautious about trying to implement this system in the current economic climate. The least we can do, as a union that wants to grow in the sector, with a wider commitment to the provision of affordable housing, is to watch carefully how these issues develop over the months ahead and be prepared to speak out and act as necessary.