Response to
Draft NI
Executive
Budget 2015/16
December 2014
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
INTRODUCTION
1.
UNISON is the leading trade union in NI and
the largest public service trade union in the UK
with over 1.3 million members. Our
membership includes public service workers in
health and social care, the education and
higher education services; workers in local
Government, youth justice; workers in private
sector service suppliers; and workers in the
community and voluntary sectors. 84% of our
membership in NI are women.
2.
Developing this response to the NI Executive’s Draft Budget for 2015/16 has yet
again been a tortuous exercise. The process is marked by:
 radically incomplete information from the majority of Government
Departments;
 the absence of equality and human rights impact assessments; and
 impossible and shortened deadlines for response.
3.
In addition the budget consultation and determination process is being used to
lever agreement on a much wider and complex set of issues including welfare cuts,
corporation tax, flags, parading and the legacy of the past.
4.
It is time to stop pretending that this is a genuine consultation exercise with the
people. Outside of bodies and organisations with existing resources we can find
no provision for members of the public to engage in a genuine dialogue on
radical cuts to jobs and services which adversely impact on their future. Given that
this is by far the most challenging budget our devolved Government has yet had
to produce, this is the time for real democratic participation and engagement by
the people of NI in a process which will determine their quality of life in the
coming years. That engagement has not happened.
5.
Our members supported the Good Friday Agreement and the political institutions
because we genuinely believed that the political direction and the Programmes for
Government would result in a better quality of life. Instead, since 2007 the equality
and human rights obligations, in particular, have been consistently stripped out of
Programmes for Government, budgets, and implementation plans. The current
budget proposals are a blatant attack on public services, the NHS and the welfare
state and as a result have a profound adverse impact on the quality of life of the
people of NI.
2
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
6.
By their own admission leading politicians have advised us that the NI budgeting
process is forced by the haste of the Coalition Government to produce an Autumn
Statement purporting to show balanced books by 2017/18 and in advance of the
General Election. The Department of Finance and Personnel in its own budget
document acknowledges that UK spending reviews have a negative impact on NI's
economic prospects and a greater adverse impact because of the scale of our
public sector. It also acknowledges that social exclusion levels are “well-above” the
rest of the UK.
7.
Despite this clear acknowledgement of adverse impact, the NI Executive has
produced a budget to implement their 2015 Spending Review and the Chancellors
Autumn Statement without any Executive challenge to the UK Government
strategy. There is not even a passing attempt to promote taxation as an alternative
to cuts. Instead, the emphasis is on cutting essential services in order to promote
corporate tax cuts.
8.
This budget is, in effect, an attack on the social fabric of NI; a broadside aimed at
an already ailing economy; and an attempt to deconstruct the social gains
resulting from the post-war promise to safeguard the people from the “five giant
evils” identified in the Beveridge report.
9.
Consequently, this budget should be rejected by the NI Assembly and our elected
politicians should have the steel to stand up to threats from the UK Government,
the Treasury, and warnings of the collapse of our institutions.
10.
UNISON, working with ICTU, has placed on record in recent years substantive
alternative economic strategies that should have been embraced by the NI
Executive. by failing to address these models the Executive has, in effect, turned its
back on the needs of the people.
3
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
DRAFT BUDGET 2015/16 – OVERARCHING ISSUES
Economic context
11.
The DFP budget submission sets out the current economic context. These include
key and critical statistics such as:
 economic growth in NI is 4% lower than the rest of the UK;
 GVA per capita (living standards) is 75% of the UK average; and
 there is ongoing collapse in economic activity in construction, mining and
quarrying, business services and finance.
12.
Nothing in the DFP budget proposals measures the growing levels of poverty,
deprivation, health inequality or job loss.
13.
The net loss in employment between 2008-2013 has been 50,000 jobs.
Consequently the 5.9% claimant count is more than double the UK average of
2.8%, and economic inactivity is 5% points higher at 27.2%.
14.
There is no strategy in the DFP document to deal with these symptoms of ongoing
austerity and decline. Instead DFP is one of the key Government Departments
pushing for welfare cuts without regard to the devastating impact on human
beings who make up these statistics. It ignores the devastating impact on the NI
economy, public service delivery and the freefall on equality and human rights.
The Executive is negotiating with the UK Treasury at the margin. The case for
genuine stimulus given low interest rates, potential deflation and collapsing oil
prices has not been made.
15.
In our previous budget response in February 2011 UNISON correctly predicted
that the Executive was basing its then budget proposals on a flawed UK financial
strategy which would not be achieved. We predicted that the consequence would
be further spending reviews and year-on-year cuts during the lifetime of that
budget. That prediction was rejected by the Executive but has now, depressingly,
become reality.
16.
The Executive, despite civil society’s consistent recommendations has failed to
establish a baseline statement of need and impact which can defend the people
against these ongoing pressures.
Welfare cuts
17.
It is extraordinary that a set of UK Government proposals to dismantle the welfare
system and further impoverish the people, in particular women, children and those
4
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
with disabilities, should now be a major bargaining chip in an attempt to secure
political agreement on a range of other controversial issues currently creating
political dysfunction. An agenda to further impoverish our people has no place in
Government policy or budget measures in NI. Therefore the £80million
contingency for mitigation in the current budget proposals should be redirected
into programmes promoting the health and well-being of the people, including
the protection of jobs and services
Devolved dialogue with UK Government
18.
A spectacular failure of our Devolved Government has been the failure to
capitalise on the unseemly rush by the UK Government to placate the people of
Scotland. Given that many of the areas of extended devolution sought by the
Scottish Government are already in place in NI but subject to blackmail, bullying
tactics and financial sanctions by the Treasury, this was a very clear opportunity for
our political leaders to call a halt to this behaviour. Instead, the major effort
appears to have been put into devolving the power to provide corporate tax
breaks at the expense of the economic and social stability which arises from
protection and investment in decent public services and public service jobs. This is
shameful.
Consulting the people
19.
There are international standards on the desirable length of public consultation on
critical issues such as this budget. For example, the International Monetary Fund
continues to prescribe a 2-4 month period for consultation on structural
adjustment programmes, usually defined as drastic cuts.
20.
Once again the draft budget consultation is a bare 8 weeks, including Christmas.
This time has been further shortened by the period available to us to comment on
Departmental Budgets and a general Departmental failure to produce the required
equality and human rights impact assessments. Some of the Departmental public
consultations achieved a bare 4 weeks. Taking Executive and Departmental
consultation together once again there has been no opportunity for engagement
and participation by the people. Fundamental legal obligations on all issues
including equality and human rights have not been met. As Lord Justice
Weatherup has ruled, the intelligent consideration and intelligent response
opportunity in consultation is therefore fundamentally prejudiced.
The pretence that this is a consultation in which the public can effect change has
been laid bare by the haste with which some elements of the public service,
notably health have moved straight to implementation in order to meet budgetary
requirements. This has resulted, as UNISON predicted, in successful legal
21.
5
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
challenge. It is likely that this trend will continue. It is incumbent on responsible
Government to take a different direction, rather than force the people to sue.
Collective Government failure to address adverse impact
22.
Despite the absence of equality and human rights impact assessments of the
whole budget and its constituent parts, what becomes painfully clear is that once
again, Government has failed to collectively consider the cumulative impact of the
current proposals on each other’s spending pressures and the cumulative effect of
the proposals on individuals and groups in our society. For example, some of the
headline proposals such as removal of all winter servicing from all roads” (DRD); a
£multi-million cut in support for nutritional school meals (DoE); and the removal
of funding for a drug rehabilitation centre and reduction in domestic violence
support (DoJ) all result in further pressure on the budget for health and social
services. More importantly, they indicate potential cumulative impact on areas of
greatest need in our society. All of the talk of joined up Government is not only
laid bare but has a £multi-million adverse effect on public funds.
23.
Consequently, the commitments made by Government on the development of a
public health strategy which would improve the social and economic outlook of
NI, have now been broken. There can no longer be a pretence by Government that
a cross-departmental public health strategy is one of its priorities.
24.
The stated intention in this budget consultation of the Executive approving bids
for their Social Investment Fund and Change Fund, which are supposed to address
cross-Departmental priorities, lacks transparency. All current Departmental bids to
these funds should be listed now for public comment during this consultation
process. Secret allocation of these funds is not acceptable.
Programme for Government
25.
In February 2011, at the point at which the previous draft budget consultation
closed, ironically there was no new Programme for Government (PfG). The current
PfG was produced after the budget. UNISON subsequently met with DFP
representatives who indicated that a review and evaluation of the Programme for
Government was underway, and in particular a statement on job creation. To date
there has been no public consultation or any systematic evaluation of the impact
of the principles and measures set out in the 2011 PfG. To extend these principles
as underpinning this budget consultation without evidential support becomes a
fig leaf for Executive policy downgraded against the pressures of the UK public
spending strategy.
6
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
Promoting equality of opportunity and human rights
26.
At a significant conference held in Queens University in 2013 clear evidence
emerged of a strategic roll-back by Government on its legal obligations on
equality and human rights. It is clear from our direct dealings with OFMdFM and
from the public mudslinging by politicians and parties that the collective
responsibility of Government to fulfil its obligations in both respects has failed.
27.
At a subsequent conference on human rights and dignity held in the Stormont
hotel in December 2014, specifically to enable engagement with politicians, their
absence was remarkable. That conference heard from keynote speakers (from the
Chief Constable to the Lord Chief Justice and from internationally recognised
human rights practitioners from around the world) that it is possible for
Governments to improve the social and economic and the civil, political and
cultural rights of their people through political will. Our Government has failed to
do so.
28.
The NI Executive and Assembly have clear and devolved legal responsibilities to
adhere to the international treaties, covenants and conventions on equality and
human rights to which the UK Government is signatory. Despite this the Executive
has produced a draft budget which clearly undermines their legal obligations.
29.
The absence of both equality and human rights assessments on the overall budget
and the absence of equality assessments on all – bar one – Departmental budgets
at this late stage vitiates this entire process.
30.
It refers to equality assessment processes in Departmental consultation
documents which do not appear to exist, and if they do, have not been released
publicly.
31.
As UNISON pointed out in our detailed response on the inadequate draft strategic
equality assessment of the 2011 budget the ongoing body of jurisprudence in the
courts in GB in relation to their similar statutory duties confirms ‘the vital principle
that the impact of any proposed policy should be assessed and steps to obviate any
adverse impact considered before the adoption and implementation of the proposed
policy’.1 therefore, an ‘authority was not entitled to formulate policy before any
equality impact assessment... [and] it is unlawful to adopt a policy contingent on an
assessment’2 (so-called ‘rearguard action’3).
1
Ibid, at para 20, restated in R (Kaur and Shah) v London Borough of Ealing [2008] EWHC 2062, R(C) v SSJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 882, Brown v SOS for Work and Pensions [2008] EWHC 3158 and other cases.
2 R (Kaur and Shah) v London Borough of Ealing [2008] EWHC 2062, at para 36.
3 R (BAPI and Another) v Sec of State for the Home Department and for Health, supra.
7
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
32.
Our detailed comments on equality and human rights in the 2011 budget were
subsequently ignored. In doing so Government, Departments and public bodies
have left themselves open to investigation and action for such breaches. It is
unacceptable that we should be in this position post the GFA and St Andrew’s
Agreements.
Protecting fundamental human rights
33.
The fact that a decisive factor in the original UNISON campaign to support the
Good Friday Agreement was the commitment to a Bill of Rights and to social and
economic rights in particular, appears to be held in contempt by sections of
Government, both UK and devolved. This position by some Ministers and some
parties is at clear variance with the wishes of the majority of the people who may
not use the language of human rights. But from a succession of public campaigns
in reaction to attacks on public services over the past five years in particular, they
clearly indicate their desire for equality and human rights.
34.
We again highlight examples of some of the key fundamental social and economic
rights which are further prejudiced by the current budget proposals.
The right to work
35.
The right to work is already constrained for a significant section of the population
currently classed as economically inactive, who want to work but cannot get a job.
36.
Thousands of private sector workers continue to be made redundant as a
consequence of the current flat-lining economy.
37.
The right to work is further compromised by the proposed major reductions in
public sector activity and jobs, the intended large scale redundancy programme
and the knock on impact on private sector employment.
38.
The continuous drift to casualised employment and zero-hours contracts in both
the public and private sectors has resulted in an even greater proportion of the
workforce subsisting on low pay, the need for welfare benefit support and erosion
of rights. The greatest impact is on women workers. There should have been
within these budget proposals an explicit commitment from the Executive to bring
forward legislation on these issues in 2015/16. There is no such commitment.
39.
The absence of any proposals to develop childcare provision and the threat to
Sure Start currently provided by the community and voluntary sector compounds
the discriminatory impact on women of budget proposals which have already
been demonstrated to have a major adverse impact, mainly on women as workers,
8
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
welfare benefit recipients, and public service users. The latest research from the
House of Commons Library demonstrates that 75% of the impact of austerity cuts
has fallen on women.
The right to health and social care
40. The right to health and social care is already being denied to many because of the
existing crises in service delivery caused by successive years of funding cuts and
an ever widening gap between what is available and what is needed for the
people of NI.
41.
Need in NI far outstrips anything in England, Scotland and Wales. This has
recently been underscored by the highest clinical authorities in NI that patient
safety remains at risk. This risk has been confirmed by the regional Health and
Social Care Board in respect of measures to address the current financial crisis, and
is highlighted in the DHSSPS current budget consultation paper.
42.
Later in this response we consider the information produced by the DHSSPS on
the wide range of health and social care now at risk. The budget indicated in the
DHSSPS paper will further diminish the right to health and social care.
The right to education
43.
The right to education is under threat for all children whether pre-school, school
children or students. At least three Government Departments hold responsibility
for protecting these rights. There is no evidence that they have co-operated at all
to do so in these budget proposals and consequently the greatest adverse impact
is on children from working class families and children and young people in
poverty.
44.
The right to education is above all compromised by the proposed 7.4% one year
cut in the aggregate schools budget compared to the 15% cut over the four year
period from 2011/15. There continue to be no guarantees for the maintenance or
improvement of learning outcomes.
45.
The opportunities for young people to benefit from the right to further and higher
education are now fundamentally compromised by the substantial reduction in
places within the DEL proposals.
The right to housing
46.
The right to housing continues to be a long-term problem in this society and is
increasingly being challenged on the basis of religious and political discrimination
9
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
in the housing waiting lists in a range of areas of objective need. The proposal to
abolish the Housing Executive appears to by a cynical attempt to disguise the
evidence base and to weaken the rights of tenants without the option of tenant
ballot. Contrast this with the retention of public housing stock in Birmingham and
other authorities when tenants have clearly expressed their democratic view on
transfer proposals.
47.
The need for new public housing stock and the need to address waiting lists have
been frustrated, and nothing will change in these budget proposals.
The right to social security
48.
As we have stated elsewhere the right to social security is under its greatest threat
since the welfare state was created. we are awaiting severe cuts to the benefits
system with a disproportionate impact on people in NI.
The right to an adequate standard of living
49.
The fundamental right to an adequate standard of living is compromised by the
major job loss which runs as a theme throughout the budget proposals and
further compromised by specific budget proposals and further comprised by
specific Departmental budget proposals.
50.
In respect of this right and the right to social security it is significant that civic
society has been forced to mount legal action on the failure of the Executive to
produce an anti-poverty strategy as legally required in the St Andrew’s
Agreement.
51.
This right is compromised by those budget proposals which continue to freeze
pay and renege on commitments to honour pay review recommendations.
52.
None of the budget proposals take account of the impact of pay freezes, zerohours contracts, temporary work without rights, exclusivity clauses and the
downward spiral on low pay on workers already suffering from in-work poverty
who themselves will suffer from any further cuts on welfare reform.
Inter-dependency
53.
All of these rights are inter-dependent. They consequently require genuine cooperation across Government Departments and the Executive to secure them for
the people. This work has not been done.
10
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
THE OVERALL DRAFT BUDGET 2015/16 AND PROPOSALS
FROM INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
54.
Government Departments have failed to produce consistent and meaningful
information. We have highlighted their failure to consult with each other to
produce a holistic budget in the interests of the people and we have highlighted
their collective failure on Equality Impact Assessment, consultation, production of
promised Saving Delivery Plans, and timely engagement with the people. We have
underscored the total lack of consistency in the nature of information produced
and the insurmountable obstacle this has created for the people of NI in
frustrating our ability to respond in a truly meaningful way.
55.
In this section of our response we highlight critical issues that shape this society
for the future. We are aware that most Departmental budgets will result in job
losses running into many thousands for both civil servants and public servants.
However, the only Department to date to have made specific figures public is the
Department of Education which states that at least 2500 jobs will go in schools.
However, we believe this to be an underestimate. We believe that this ambiguity
on the extent of job loss is deliberately designed to avoid embarrassment to
Ministers at this point in the “talks” process.
Draft Budget 2015/16 (DFP)
56.
The DFP paper reinforces a failed austerity strategy. It does not challenge UK
Government policy, which is on a trajectory to ‘1930’s’ by 2020. It also lacks
creativity on raising revenue, and fails to risk assess the cuts consequences of
Corporation Tax. It is not an adequate platform for current critical Executive
decisions.
57.
This document sets out the economic context and claimed rationale for the 201516 Budget. We dealt with this in detail earlier in this submission.
58.
It claims input from pre-consultation in November 2013. None of these (remote)
consultation inputs are reported in the text, nor does it reflect any of the
submissions from UNISON and the wider trade union movement.
59.
It declares that an ‘equality screening document will be produced’. As at this point
there is no evidence of this. The Secretary of State’s demand for an Executive
budget agreement is inconsistent with Government’s legal obligations under
statutory duty.
11
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
Economy Issues
60.
There is no critique of the failure of ‘growth’ to promote equality.
61.
The social impact of the 1.6% reduction in non-ring fenced Departmental
Expenditure Limits (DEL) is not evaluated.
62.
There is no reference to the projected UK spending totals to 2020, where the
Office of Budget Responsibility predicts public spending to fall back to 1930’s
levels. Consequently there is no analysis on the dire consequences of future cuts in
the NI block grant.
63.
On the Regional Rate there is no reference to raising the cap on rateable domestic
values and the potential revenue gains from such a progressive measure in line
with recommendations from the trade union movement.
64.
On balance sheet PFI is a disproportionate 20%+ of total borrowing as predicted
by UNISON in more than a decade of detailed submissions. All of the current 32
schemes need urgent reappraisal to determine the revenue gains from a public
option.
65.
In various meetings with Government we had been given to understand that there
would be a move to zero-based budgeting. Para 4.4 confirms that there is no zero
based approach to meet the escalating needs of the people, but simply a
declining roll forward for 2015-16 of the 2014-15 control totals. There is no visible
rationale for the wide variances in 2015-16 cuts for non ring fenced Departments
other than a budget being driven by a frenzy of cuts to services and jobs.
66.
Public spending in recent years has benefited from reduced pension actuarial
values in public body accounts. The rationale for increasing cuts now on a revised
actuarial basis needs greater clarification. There should also be detailed
evaluation of the Social Investment Fund and its outcomes before roll forward to
2015-16.
67.
Departmental bids to the Change Fund should be published for comment before
final Executive decision in the interests of fairness, openness and transparency.
This is an important initiative which needs to focus on the wider Public Health
agenda rather than being used as a tool to assuage the concerns of those who
lobby hardest.
12
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety
Context
68.
The Department has issued a consultation paper on the 2015-2016 Budget. The
timing of this consultation (8 weeks, closing on 29 December) is driven by wider
budget pressures rather than genuine engagement on learning from the current
crisis, changing approach in 2015-2016, and addressing the consequences of
public spending reaching 1930’s levels by 2020.
69.
There is a commitment to publish a ‘full high level equality assessment’ as soon as
possible. This has still not appeared with only 12 working days remaining in the
allowed consultation period. Its absence given the criticality of health inequalities
should lead the Executive on the precautionary principle to consider this Health
document as essentially unfinished work.
Current Crisis
70.
The 2015-2016 DHSSPS budget resurrects a failed plan and approach, and will fail
again on performance, inequalities, and financial management. The Executive
approval process should be objective needs based, not financially driven as in the
current paper.
71.
2015-2016 has been a critical outcome of years of austerity and decline. That ‘ring
fencing’ has led to the current rounds of cuts and closures confirms UNISON’s
long-standing evaluation that the damage is done by what is in real terms the
annual 6% cut from 2011 to 2015. Ring-fencing has become a dysfunctional cover
for real damage.
72.
The system has failed on performance particularly given the systematic failure to
achieve on all key targets. The ongoing failure on the 4hr A&E target (70% and
falling, target 95%) is a key example.
73.
Health inequality investment and action has stalled, and is no longer the key driver
of health action and policy. The ongoing deficits, and sheer impossibility of
breakeven in the system or at the level of Trusts, point to a profound failure of
leadership and delivery. By its own admission the regional Health and Social Care
Board is sanctioning service cuts which incur risks to patients and clients. The
previous Minister stated that he would not sign off a health budget which put
people at risk. The current Minister must take the same position.
74.
A parallel administrative review has been announced. However, this appears to be
a review designed to “paper over the cracks.” UNISON has proposed radical
13
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
alternative structures in its response to this review. These proposals are capable of
releasing significant funds (up to 15%) on the entire health budget. The failure to
consider this action suggests that some form of protection at the top of the
dysfunctional system is in operation.
2015-2016 Plan
75.
Particular aspects of the reissued health Plan will reinforce failure:

Further bed reduction as a source of savings is simply counter intuitive to the
impact on A&E services of historic and current reductions (1000+ beds cut
since 2011).

The ‘new to review’ ratio, DNA and cancellation issues for outpatients have not
worked as a practice model for several years, and the evidence is that they are
unlikely to produce savings. Yet they are repeated again as valid action
proposals.

On homecare, re-ablement is cost neutral on all available academic research.
Yet again it is repeated as a savings model which the evidence shows will not
happen.

Domiciliary care redesign, and increased use of the independent sector, are
dangerous initiatives to turn a critical service into a savings cash machine,
leading to further deterioration in services to clients and the conditions of
work in the independent and private sectors. It is disturbing that this should
be presented as a proposal at a time when UNISON has called for a major
investigation into potential fraud.

The skill mix savings initiative is now being progressed with a clandestine staff
questionnaire. We are entitled to assume that the process is now secret
precisely because the skill mix ratio will tend to support budget cuts in nursing
and other areas rather than best practice in patient care. This process and
failure of consultation is currently being challenged by UNISON.

Safe staffing levels remain in question, particularly given the ambiguities and
contradictions between the Chief Nursing Officer and National Institute for
Clinical Excellence guidance papers.

Sickness absence in each Trust is already at the targets prescribed by
Ministerial Directions and therefore yield no savings.
14
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16

Pay restraint that fails to implement PRB recommendations is, on the Marmot
inequality principles, already widening health inequalities. In addition, global
health labour market trends are already creating skills shortages that damage
care. Failure to implement on pay, coupled with the reductions in jobs and
services inherent in the entire plan, will cause industrial action in the service.
Given the fact that the original March 2015/16 budget made full provision for
implementation of the PRB recommendations and the new Plan removes
them, this action must be regarded as provocative.

The shared services agenda has already demonstrated on Payroll that it creates
major difficulties and user distrust of the system. Proposals to move ahead
with a further shared services agenda, when the crisis created in pay-roll has
neither been evaluated nor fully remedied constitutes an irresponsible
proposal likely to result in more waste of £millions.

The proposal to reshape / rationalise services is nothing more than the failed
agenda of Acute side rationalisation and closures. These are the same actions
which have been hailed as the savings driver in previous Plans. It has failed to
produce any tangible savings and further proposals are clearly not
implementable for clinical reasons and in respect of patient safety.
Workforce
76.
It is of major concern that there is no HSC or NISCC Workforce data in the paper,
no evaluation of workforce impact, and no prediction of job loss at any level in the
system despite the fact that the majority of proposals will clearly result in large
scale job loss or further deterioration in terms and conditions. The ‘cut and paste’
Review of Administration is clearly not equipped to handle this issue in its limited
timescale and must consequently be regarded as a fudge of the issues.
Risk
77.
The DHSSPS paper acknowledges that despite unquantified ring fencing there is
serious risk in 2015-2016 to quality of care, statutory obligations and Ministerial
Direction compliance. The budget therefore needs to be reset to eliminate these
risks. ‘Risk’ has become politically permissible during the latest round of 20142015 crisis cuts. We need to restore the precautionary principle essential to
regulated clinical practice of ‘do no harm’. This should then be reinforced by a
Public Health and evidence-based approach demonstrating that the reduction of
health inequalities benefits the health of all. ‘Transforming Your Care’ should be
set aside. A new public health approach of ‘Transforming Our Care’, with the
support of Government, all parties and health leaders committing to a public NHS
15
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
and engaging directly with the people, is now urgently needed if there is to be any
prospect of redirecting resources.
78.
It is now time for Government to recognise that there is a very clear design in the
past 30 years of NHS constant review and reorganisation. It has its origins in the
political dogma of the direct rule Government of 30 years past which sought to
dismantle the NHS across the UK. That model has been adopted without critical
review by our own devolved Government which has failed to recognise political
dogma as the driver rather than in the needs of the people and the founding
vision of the NHS. During this time genuine reviews and recommendations, not
the least the Executive’s own Investing for Health programme, set out actions
capable of effectively addressing the issues. It is no longer permissible that this
work be largely ignored in favour of plans which use the blunt instrument of cuts.
Trust cuts proposals
79.
The Department has identified the consequences of their funding shortfall at the
highest level of generality. However, the specifics of what this means have been
set out by Trusts and accepted by the Regional Health and Social Care Board. No
responsible Government can consider them to be acceptable.
Across each Trust area UNISON is challenging the decisions we have uncovered to date.
Much of the Board’s intentions and the Trusts’ intentions are still secret. The People
have the to know before the next election. No information on further cuts has been
disclosed for the next financial year commencing in April 2015:
The Western Trust:
 Proposal to cut respite services for children and young people with severe
learning and physical disabilities and their families at the Cottage Respite unit.
 Proposals to reduce services in Omagh Hospital despite promises to the people.
 Ongoing cuts to mental health facilities and services across the west.
 Ongoing cuts and privatisation of home care services across the west despite
winter pressures.
 Job cuts across the services putting patient care at risk.
 Waiting times, already well outside target, to increase again.
 All NHS care homes under continuing threat of closure. Decision in January.
The Northern Trust:
 Proposed closure of Dalriada Hospital Intermediate Care and Respite – now
temporarily halted by public power and court decision!
 Closure of Minor Injuries Unit in Whiteabbey Hospital.
 Reduction in medical out of hours services in Whiteabbey Hospital.
 Further beds cuts in Mid Ulster Hospital
 Further cuts and privatisation of home care services across the North and
16
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16



restriction on new care packages for vulnerable people despite winter pressures
Job cuts across the services putting patient care at risk
Waiting times, already well outside target, to increase again.
All NHS care homes under continuing threat of closure. Decision in January.
The Belfast Trust:
The Belfast Trust already has a series of ongoing cuts and bed closures underway. It has
not made further proposals public. The cuts already underway include:
 A further £400,000 cuts to home care services across the Belfast with no
information on new care packages for vulnerable people despite winter pressures.
 Further unsustainable cuts in bed numbers.
 Job cuts across the services putting patient care at risk
 Waiting times, already well outside target, to increase again.
 Both NHS care homes under continuing threat of closure. Decision in January.
The South Eastern Trust:
 Closure of the Minor Injuries Unit in Bangor – now halted by the Minister
 Closure of a further 35 beds across Downe, Lagan Valley and Bangor
 Further cuts and privatisation of home care services across the South East area.
Only 2 out of every 3 vulnerable people will get a home care package despite
winter pressures
 Job cuts across the services putting patient care at risk
 Waiting times, already well outside target, to increase again.
 The remaining care homes under continuing threat of closure. Decision in January
2015.
The Southern Trust:
 Closure of the Armagh Minor Injuries unit.
 Removal of local stroke services from Newry.
 Further cuts and privatisation of home care services across the Southern area.
 Job cuts across the services putting patient care at risk.
 Waiting times, already well outside target, to increase again.
 All NHS care homes under continuing threat of closure. Decision in January.
The Ambulance Trust:
 Massive expenditure already incurred on the use of private services instead of
investment in NHS services.
 Reduction of non emergency transport by the NHS resulting in longer journey
times for patients.
 Job cuts to front line services.
It is clear to UNISON that these latest cuts are the forerunner to a massive further attack
on our NHS health and social services.
80.
UNISON’s previous budget responses are evidence based. Those that are capable
of releasing vital funds to develop a public health model have been ignored
17
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
without explanation. Our evidence to the Assembly Health Committee highlighted
the strategic imperative of prioritising prevention over treatment to improve
health outcomes and the management of long-term costs. Once again no such
strategy is reflected in this consultation. Nor is there any approach to the waste in
the inherited structural split between NHS Commissioners (The Health and Social
Care Board and the local Commissioning Groups) and NHS Providers (the Trusts
and the Agencies). York University Centre for Health Economics research has
identified this administrative split as creating a 15% additional transaction cost on
top of basic treatment costs.
Department of Education
81.
This Budget proposal fundamentally fails to meet the needs of children and pupils.
There are no control measures to prevent decline in educational performance and
outcomes, and the wider issues of young peoples’ behaviour. The Executive must
therefore not accept or agree this critical Budget.
Context
82.
The Department budget proposals for 2015-2016 do not incorporate a full
evaluation of impact on critical learning outcomes such as literacy and numeracy,
and the impact on the economy in terms of the development of a skilled
workforce.
83.
The “high level” equality impact screen claims no major impact, but then commits
to screening of particular proposals in determination of a Final Budget. Quite
simply, there is no time left for this essential process in the current budget
consultation. We must therefore assume that it has been left to unions, parents,
children and other stakeholders to highlight adverse impact. This is not
acceptable.
Planning and Savings
84.
We can find no account for any costs arising from the creation of the new
Education Authority from 1 October 2015 or confirmation that there will be a valid
financial platform supported by transition costs. This is critical for the confidence
of all stakeholders in moving forward into this new model of Education
Administration.
85.
While the document does not quantify job loss – and should have – it is now clear
that there will be at least 1,000 teaching job losses and 1,500 non-teaching job
losses. Given the financial model used to calculate this job loss, unions estimate
that it may be closer to 4000 jobs. Rolls are no longer falling. This can only
18
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
therefore have negative educational and health impact. The implementation of
these job losses will be damaged by the absence of central control consequent
upon the current model of delegation, with a number of schools still retaining
excess bank reserves. It is clear that urgent collective negotiation must take place
between the Department, the employers and trade unions.
86.
The root cause of the problem is clearly the proposal to reduce the Aggregate
Schools Budget by 7.4% in 2015-2016. This contrasts with the 4 year 2011-2015
reduction of 15%. This steepening of the gradient of the critical cut in the budget
must be reconsidered.
87.
The assumption that deletion of the £4.7m support budget for Nutritional Meals
will maintain nutritional standards through unspecified efficiencies is deeply
flawed. There can be no resurrection of the discredited PEDU Model, which was
withdrawn by the Minister following trade union intervention. All the evidence
from professional sources is that there is no feasible method of sustaining
standards while withdrawing this funding, and therefore the Executive must
reconsider this critical Public Health initiative. Also, further attention needs to be
paid to the effect of malnourishment on pupils during holiday periods. In the light
of the major research on the level of malnutrition of children in England we should
instead be dealing with a proposal to invest in similar research for Northern
Ireland where child poverty level are at their highest, and consequent investment
in a free nutritional school meals service.
88.
The following specific additional cuts proposals should also be rejected:
89.

Reduction in Special Needs Capacity Building £3m. This has become an
ongoing low hanging fruit in the Department, and compromises the
absolute priority of ensuring a whole school approach to the mainstream
of Special Needs pupils.

While there is no evaluation of Sure Start impacts in the overall budget, the
£2m reduction in Departmental contribution here damages a critical
priority programme that should be supported and enhanced by the
Executive.

On an evidence base the £2.5m reduction in pre-school education will
damage learning outcomes for children and will impact on Nursery Nurses.
This must be rejected
The removal of the £9m Departmental contingency is a high risk measure given
the range of cuts and pressures identified. No other Department appears to be
doing this.
19
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
90.
There is an ongoing process of mergers and closures. The Departmental
agreement with non-teaching unions on compensation and transition should be
brought forward and the current DFP block on this initiative must be removed as a
priority action.
Department of Culture, Arts, and Leisure
91.
This document lacks detail, equality analysis and is fundamentally unfinished as at
12 December 2014. It should therefore not be the basis of Executive
consideration.
92.
The Department does set clear objectives in stating that support for culture, arts
and leisure must promote equality; tackle poverty and social exclusion; and
strengthen access and participation from deprived communities. The extent to
which these criteria are met in the document, however, is questionable. If these
objectives are real then the future of the Ulster Orchestra should not be in doubt
and there should be no attempt to set the future of established arts against the
future of community-based arts. This, however, is the current reality of the impact
of this budget. In addition, no reference is made in this budget, nor the DFP
budget, to the ICTU proposal for direct funding of the Ulster Orchestra on a
similar basis as its counterpart in Scotland.
93.
The Department’s statement that “cuts proposals are the consequence of the
erosion of the Block Grant by a Tory-led administration” acknowledges a key reality
that other Departments are not at this stage prepared to acknowledge.
94.
There is no evidence in the document of the proposed consultation on budget
measures with the DECAL Assembly Committee.
95.
The overall 10% reduction in revenue and 40% reduction in Capital spend are at
the higher end of the range of required Departmental cuts. For 2015-2016, the
Capital programme is effectively the Stadium Development Programme.
96.
The document commits to the publication of detailed Saving Delivery Plans by 30
November 2014. As at 12 December there is no evidence of publication or
content on the Departmental website.
97.
The ‘protection’ of Libraries is to ensure that all remain open. The impact of the
reduction of hours to achieve the targeted 7.5% saving is not evaluated
particularly on the issue that continues to be raised by UNISON. This is the
adverse affect on children whose families do not have IT access when the limited
facilities in Libraries have to be queued for because of hours reduction. This is a
20
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
clear issue of objective need. The protection mechanism raises revenue cuts for all
other Departmental programmes to an average 11.2%.
98.
While there is reference to the Executive workforce restructuring plan, there is no
analysis of numbers affected. In the absence of the detailed savings proposals,
the Department simply states detrimental impact. The detail of this is essential for
final Executive consideration.
99.
The listed objectives for the future Arts and Culture Strategy are comprehensive
and reflect Departmental objectives. Detailed cuts in the Savings Delivery Plan
should therefore be tested against these criteria.
100. At this stage we can find no substantial Equality analysis in such a crucial
document.
Department of Employment and Learning
101. The proposals from DEL demonstrate that commitments in successive
Programmes for Government on the importance of respecting and supporting our
young people were hollow. These are proposals which if followed through will
damage the future prospects of the next generation.
102. The statistics are clear. 1,000 student places in Higher Education cut. 650 jobs lost
16,000 student places in Further Education cut. 500 jobs lost. This is untenable
and must be reversed. The document also confirms the sustained under-funding
of both these sectors compared with GB statistics.
103. In its haste to get to a baseline budget for 2015-2016, the Department has very
wrongly ceased the Pathways Project for young people not in Education,
Employment or Training.
104. The document also indicates serious frontline risks to the Careers Service.
105. The downward trajectory of Departmental cuts irresponsibly reduces the
contribution of the EU Social Fund to the Northern Ireland economy because of
the linkage issues.
106. There is indication that funding for the key Community and Voluntary initiative of
the Community Family Support Fund is at major and damaging risk.
107. The equality document is ‘preliminary high level only’. This is not a basis for
budget conclusions that reflect the statutory duty.
21
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
Department of Social Development
108. There are no detailed savings plans as promised in this paper. The limited equality
analysis assumes that all service delivery in the Department cannot be analysed or
relevant to Section 75 groups. Long-standing analysis by the Committee for the
Administration of Justice demonstrates the essential falsity of this Departmental
approach.
109. What can be gleaned from the document is that the implementation of Welfare
cuts creates substantial additional administrative costs.
110. The outline proposals on Urban Community Development appear to indicate a
major threat to Community and Voluntary funding.
Department of the Environment
111. The Department states explicitly that the extreme levels of cuts required does not
allow them to produce a realistic or viable budget scenario.
112. There must be a guarantee that in reorganisation the current defined standards of
local authority front-line services must be at least maintained. However, from the
tenor of this document it is clear to us that those services are now under major
threat.
113. From the scant detail it would appear that Road Safety Training is under threat at
a time when the Ni statistics indicate a sharp rise in related accidents and deaths.
This is irresponsible and an attack on any concept of a public health model. There
must be absolutely no reduction or removal of Road Safety Training.
114. There is no substantive detail on cuts in grants to a range of voluntary
organisations including environmental providers, or detail on variation down in
existing contracts for service delivery. However this is a general proposal inherent
in the document. Any proposal on substantial reduction in waste processing
would attract EU sanctions and fines, and the risk of this has not been assessed.
115. There must be no cut in grant provision to Disability Action.
116. The removal of emergency assistance on flooding, taken together with the DRD
reduction in out of hours telephone support creates a scenario for disaster.
117. Even though revenue raised would be limited to environmental schemes, there
should be more evaluation of raising the charge for plastic bags.
22
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
Department of Justice
118. The promised updates to the Assembly Committee, and Savings Delivery Plans are
not available at the point of writing.
119. It is clear from the document that in the words of the Department there will be
major detriment to the PSNI, particularly in the key tasks of Community Policing
and legacy investigations. The document which is clearly at a very preliminary
stage indicates major and cumulative stage on the Community and Voluntary
sector through cuts in funding from the Prison Service, Probation, and Youth
Justice. The figures indicate that these three services will effectively deliver their
savings through cutting Community and Voluntary funding.
120. There is no visible reference in the document to the announced closure of the
Addictions Centre in Ballymena, which is presumably required to achieve baseline
start in 2015-2016. This proposal has caused widespread alarm in the wider Public
Health community including concerns raised at the Health and Social Care Board.
121. The continued and indefinite failure to progress the Desertcreat joint training
facility leaves substantial unallocated capital funding in the Departmental budget,
and compromises this key element of the Executive’s Infrastructure Investment
Programme.
Department of Regional Development
122. The Department commits to the achievement of safe and sustainable services and
the promotion of health and wellbeing. It then proposes a series of measures
which it admits will have severe detrimental impact on these objectives. Key
issues the Executive must address include:

The re-negotiation of all PFI / PPP schemes which dominate and distort the
revenue commitments the Department has to make to compensate for
past infrastructure investment. This means an options appraisal to remove
the excess costs of PFI / PPP, and restore these developments to in-house
management and delivery.

It is health damaging to reduce the current level of water treatment and
pumping. This is a critical Public Health issue. The removal of 24/7 out of
hours emergency support and services for flooding given recent and
increasing incidents of floods in urban and rural areas is critical to public
safety. Environmental and legal standards are there for the welfare of the
people, and must not be compromised.
23
UNISON NI response to draft NI Executive Budget 2015/16
123.
The proposed reductions in bus services are particularly critical where the
removal of all town centre services is proposed, since these are a critical
support to mobility for elderly and disabled people. The impact will be
worsened by the proposed withdrawal of grant to the Disability Action
Community Transport service.
124.
There must be no disconnection of street lights. The removal of £6.6m
funding to provide a winter service for all roads indicates the level of crisis and
catastrophe the people face in budget proposals such as this.
125.
Rural proofing impact is superficial. The Equality Screen identifies one major
impact on people with disabilities. Under Equality Commission Guidance this
requires a full Assessment. Therefore this paper with or without Executive
amendments cannot be approved at this stage.
CONCLUSION
126. It is clear from the irresponsible proposals emerging from most, if not all, of the
Government Departments and the overall budget itself that this is crisis
management of the worst type. Any responsible Government would have assessed
the multiple impact of draconian cuts proposals on society and the economy as a
whole and rejected them on the grounds that they now undermine every
commitment given to the people.
127. A responsible Government is also required to assess the impact from an equality
and human rights perspective of such proposals on the individuals and groups of
greatest need in our society. No such assessment has been made.
128. UNISON calls on the Executive and the Assembly to set aside these budget
proposals and instead to use the current process of dialogue to reach agreement
on a collective strategy that will safeguard the health, well-being and economic
prospects of the people of Northern Ireland.
For further information contact Patricia McKeown, Regional Secretary, UNISON,
UNISON Centre, Galway House, 165 York Street, Belfast BT15 1AL.
T. 028 90270190; 0780539096
24