Public and Commercial Services Union

Adrian Miners, Liberal councillor for Dogsthorpe ward, Peterborough city council

Question one: The government has proposed to cut over 100,000 civil and public service jobs. Locally cuts are proposed in HMRC, DWP and possibly the Land Registry. Are you concerned (a) That less staff will mean a poorer service for people in Peterborough, (b) Those who are made redundant will mean more unemployment, less cash to be spent in the local shops etc?

Yes, I am very concerned about job cuts in civil & public services. Efficiencies should not always be aimed at reducing staff costs. Lets improve the services offered and promote a culture of pride in our jobs...ensuring all have a realistic work load.
 

Question two: The government are going to use private firms to get people into work off benefits, are you concerned that those firms
may not be local, and will be paid for each placement whether that be for a week or permantly. This could mean they are tempted to fill vacancies with unsuitable personnel to get cash when they can then get further payment when they come back again! Further experienced accountable DWP staff will be made redundant in the process.

Privatisation is one of the biggest evils facing LOCAL government. Private 'Consultants' seem to be everywhere throughout all LOCAL government structures. Costing LOCAL people a fortune. As much work etc should be done "in house". We need to return LOCAL accountability to LOCAL government.
 

Private firms, if they have to be involved in LOCAL services, need to be under the control of LOCAL councils and be under the same rules/regulations currently applicable to direct council service providers.
 

Question three: Peterborough is being expanded with more housing and amenities being built are you concerned that there will be an
increase for demand on services which will not be met because of staff cuts?

Perhaps, I am in a select group of local councillors, when it comes to our "expansion" strategy? I believe we are developing the city too fast and we are allowing too many houses to be built. Our green open spaces within our current residential areas are fast disappearing in far too many back-garden developments. Hampton is supportable, but other housing development areas throughout the city, are not.
 

Question four: Are you concerned about the poor pay deals being offered to civil servants which are below the rate of inflation? This is
leading to poor moral of staff and less cash for them to spend locally. 

Yes, poor pay throughout public/civil service jobs is a problem. The fat cats are getting too much of the cream - while the work moggies have to lap up whats spilled!! Poor pay is one issue affecting poor morale.
 

The PCS campaign priorities are very commendable, and I have no problem in supporting them. But, please remember I will be talking to voters on/about LOCAL issues - but, I realise national issues have a bearing on local government and local accountability.

---

Stephen Goldspink, Conservative councillor for East ward, Peterborough city council and Pamela Winslade, Conservative councillor for Orton Longueville ward, Peterborough city council

Question one: The government has proposed to cut over 100,000 civil and public service jobs. Locally cuts are proposed in HMRC, DWP and possibly the Land Registry. Are you concerned (a) That less staff will mean a poorer service for people in Peterborough, (b) Those who are made redundant will mean more unemployment, less cash to be spent in the local
shops etc?

I am concerned that less staff in key Government offices will mean a poorer service for people in Peterborough and that any redundancies will affect the local economy. However, Peterborough City Council has shown through its business transformation programme that it is possible to do more for less, without the need for compulsory redundancies. My concern is that the Government's approach is somewhat more crude.

Question two: The government are going to use private firms to get people into work off benefits, are you concerned that those firms may not be local, and will be paid for each placement whether that be for a week or permantly. This could mean they are tempted to fill vacancies with unsuitable personnel to get cash when they can then get further payment when they come back again! Further experienced accountable DWP staff will be made redundant in the process.

I am against involving private firms in trying to get people into work if they are judged per placement, regardless of length; that is a licence to waste taxpayer's money. If this is to be done, there clearly needs to be penalties for private companies if the placement lasts less than, say 1 year. But why not offer a similar incentive scheme to current staff rather than privatise the task?

Question three: Peterborough is being expanded with more housing and amenities being built are you concerned that there will be an
increase for demand on services which will not be met because of staff cuts?

Peterborough City Council has shown through its business transformation programme that it is possible to do more for less, and I believe that the same principles can be applied to the civil service, i.e. cut central administration costs, automate tasks, use computers to their full potential. However, that would probably mean keeping staffing levels the same and dealing with increased demand through working more efficiently. Staff cuts would not really seem appropriate to me in a city subject to rapid expansion.

Question four: Are you concerned about the poor pay deals being offered to civil servants which are below the rate of inflation? This is
leading to poor moral of staff and less cash for them to spend locally.

This Government is trying to hoodwink everyone on inflation by using an index that doesn't really measure the true cost of living, and that affects everyone - civil servants, local government employees, pensioners, working families, etc, etc. The question is, what is the true rate of inflation? In addition, tax is going up. I think we are all suffering from this double squeeze so I am concerned for everyone.

In general, I think the Government could do a lot more to make the civil service more efficient, but privatisation is likely to make things worse, especially as they have a track record of failing to properly design, control, monitor and evaluate private contracts. 

---

John Holdich OBE, Conservative councillor for Glinton and Wittering ward, Peterborough city council

Question one: The government has proposed to cut over 100,000 civil and public service jobs. Locally cuts are proposed in HMRC, DWP and possibly the Land Registry. Are you concerned (a) That less staff will mean a poorer service for people in Peterborough, (b) Those who are made redundant will mean more unemployment, less cash to be spent in the local
shops etc?

Question two: The government are going to use private firms to get people into work off benefits, are you concerned that those firms may not be local, and will be paid for each placement whether that be for a week or permantly. This could mean they are tempted to fill vacancies with unsuitable personnel to get cash when they can then get further payment when they come back again! Further experienced accountable DWP staff will be made redundant in the process.

Question three: Peterborough is being expanded with more housing and amenities being built are you concerned that there will be an
increase for demand on services which will not be met because of staff cuts?

Question four: Are you concerned about the poor pay deals being offered to civil servants which are below the rate of inflation? This is
leading to poor moral of staff and less cash for them to spend locally.

Thank you for your letter regarding the above. With nearly 30 years’ service in public life, I am totally committed to public services. I am constantly reminded about the loyalty, dedication and professionalism of the City Councils hard working staff and I hope I have a record of saying thank you to them.
 

If I could answer your other questions in one paragraph, it would be to say this: if you privatise public services, we have all failed – bosses, unions and Government, particularly the latter, by not funding services near to our hearts properly, or allowing us to pay staff at a rate which would allow us to attract new and able staff into public service.
 

I have no problem in modernising our services to meet the demand of the modern age and customer expectations, but we seem to be suffering a death by a thousand cuts, constantly monitored, targets and inspections. In an establishment I chair, recently, we had an inspection, which I estimate could have cost as much as £100,000.
 

To end, at the rate we are going, us Councillors within 10 years will just be glorified monitors.