JM Thorn

20th December 2005

In late November, the British Government published the report of the Review of Public Administration (RPA). The formal remit of this review, which had been commissioned by the short-lived power-sharing executive, was to examine how best the north’s education, health and local government services could be administered. However, underpinning that innocuous brief was an assumption, held by both the British and the local parties, that the north was “over-governed” and that there would have to be a reduction in the size of the public sector. The British treasury is determined to get its dividend from the peace process, which means a significant squeeze on public spending. Given that the state is the main driver of the economy in the north, and that over sixty per cent of employment is in or dependent upon the public sector, any cutbacks will have major impact.

Shrinking the state

This policy of reducing the public sector has been running alongside the peace process. The argument advanced is that as the north becomes more stable its economy will grow and become less dependent upon the state, and that growth in the private sector will make up for any shortfall in public spending. However, in reality this scenario has not materialised. There has been no inrush of investment into the north in the wake of the peace process; the economy is still dependent upon the state. The sectors of the economy that have expanded have been retail and financial services, aided by the extension of credit and rise of personal debt. In addition, the jobs in these sectors tend to be low skill and low wage. While public sector wages and conditions in the north are the lowest in the UK, they are still better than those in the private sector. For example, on average weekly pay in the public sector is £100 more than in the private sector. Without the public sector acting as a kind of benchmark the rates of pay in the private sector would be even lower. A major shift in the north’s economy towards the private sector would inevitably result in a drastic deterioration in living conditions for working class people.

Over the last five years the Government has been pursing a gradual but steady strategy of chipping away at the public sector and shifting more of the financial burden for services unto householders. This has taken the form of expanding the use of private finance in education and health, and raising rates. However, recently there has been an effort by Government to step up the tempo of this process. A good example of this is the reform of the Water Service, with the move towards privatisation and the introduction of a separate charge. This is the double whammy of lowering wages and increasing charges.

RPA

The RPA is the latest and potentially the most far-reaching element in this neo-liberal strategy. Its proposals advocate the complete reorganisation of health, education and council services. The number of public bodies administering these services is to be cut from 67 to 20. In health, the four existing boards will be replaced by one central authority, while the 18 trusts will be cut to just five. In education the five boards will be replaced by one Education Authority (EA). This will take over the work currently carried out by the Education and Library Boards, the Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) and the Regional Training Unit (RTU). It will also assume the responsibility held at present by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (CnaG). However, this does not represent the end of church control over education. The minister gave assurances that Catholic schools would retain their “ethos”. The EA will also be the employing authority for all staff employed in grant-aided schools. The most part of the RPA that got the most media attention was the section on local government, and the proposal to cut the number of councils from 26 to seven. These so-called “super councils”, three in the west and three in the east (plus Belfast city), will cover large geographical areas and be given extra powers in planning, roads maintenance and urban and rural regeneration.

Structurally the RPA represents a centralisation of the running of health, education and council services. In terms of the services that are delivered, and the workers who deliver tem, it represents significant cuts. Despite the claim by Peter Hain that the RPA is not about cost cutting, he has estimated that it will save around £200 million annually. These budget cuts are dressed up in the populist rhetoric of reducing bureaucracy and releasing funds for “front line services”. However, the reality is that administration costs for these comprise only a fraction of their budget and certainly do not amount to £200 million. As we saw with the recent cuts to education budgets, assurances to protect frontline services count for nothing. Those cuts resulted in many teachers, special needs assistants and crossing patrol people being made redundant. If the £200 million RPA cuts translated directly into jobs, losses could amount to ten thousand. While this is the highest estimate, there will definitely be significant redundancies amongst heath, education and council staff. While ministers did not discuss the number of job losses, Hain did point towards redundancies with the establishment of a “public service commission”, which will deal with the transfer of staff to new public bodies. This could also involve moving staff from the public sector into new privatised or semi-privatised agencies that will take on the responsibility for some services. Also, with the reduction in the number of public bodies, there will inevitably be the complete closure of some hospitals, schools and council depots. Overall, the RPA proposals represent a major assault on the public sector and those who work within it.

Political reaction 

In the reaction of local political parties to the RPA proposals, there was very little on the threat of thousands of redundancies. They concentrated mainly on the drawing of the council boundaries. Most of them were opposed to the seven-council plan, which would divide the north into three unionist dominated councils in the east, and three nationalist dominated councils in the west, with Belfast evenly divided. Unionists opposed the seven because of the control it gave nationalists in the west. The Ulster Unionists suddenly discovered they were against sectarianism, describing it as a carve up and the worst example of “gerrymandering” ever seen in the state! The DUP denounced the plan as “a clear attempt to split the province” complaining that nationalists would be able to “develop their united Ireland policy in the councils that they dominate”. This fantasy was also shared by Sinn Fein, which is why they supported the seven-council model. Indeed, they went so far as to claim that it was their idea all along and the British had accepted their arguments. In reality, Sinn Fein had shifted its position to what the British government was putting forward. This resulted in one of its leading representatives, Francie Molloy, being suspended. He had continued to argue in public for the party’s previous position of a 15-council model, a position that had the support of all the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). The 15-council model was considered to be the one that would create a more even political balance to allow for real power sharing. Sinn Fein’s rejection calls into question their commitment to power sharing and “inclusiveness”. When presented with the opportunity to grab some limited power for themselves they will happily abandon such principles. Of course, the corollary of this is that unionists will dominate the councils in the east.

With the Stormont assembly unlikely to be restored, the political arrangements set out in the RPA could be seen as an alternative. However, it is hardly one that offers stability. While it has been claimed that councils represented the only functioning political institution in the state for the last thirty years, they only worked because their powers were extremely limited, often summed up as bins and burials. However, history shows that for unionists the purpose of power is to discriminate, this is the very reason for its existence as a political movement. In the three councils it will dominate, with the extra powers they have, discrimination will be rife. No matter how docile the nationalist parties, this will provoke opposition that could lead to the system of government unravelling.

Whether the political structures set out in the RPA are viable or not there is no that the neo-liberal offensive will continue apace. There is now a comprehensive strategy by government to reduce the public sector in the north through cuts, privatisation and service charges. If this is successful all workers, not just those in the public sector, will be facing a very bleak economic future. It is therefore a necessity for trade union and socialist activists to organise an opposition to this process before it becomes too far advanced. This is a massive challenge, but one that cannot be avoided.