Partnership Working Research Report: Social and Economic Partnership Project

Partnership Working Research Report: Social and Economic Partnership Project

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS - VIEWS ON NEW MECHANISMS FOR WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP

Introduction

2. One of the aims of this research was to seek to identify whether the Executive's partners consider current partnership mechanisms to be sufficient, or whether they believe that new mechanisms are required in Scotland. Therefore, during the interview stage participants were asked their views on existing relationships and about possible new mechanisms.
4. The roundtable discussions with external participants provided an opportunity for debate around current mechanisms and consideration of some possible options for future partnership working in Scotland. The views elicited from these methods were diverse.
6. Following a short consideration of external participants' views on existing bilateral relationships and on whether new ways of working are required, the remainder of the analysis in this Chapter highlights the discussions - mostly of external participants - around new mechanisms.

7. Views on Current Partnership Working Mechanisms

8. Participants generally described their current bilateral relationships with the Executive in positive terms. As illustrated earlier, participants referred to a range of types of engagement, from one-off meetings to regular involvement in, for example, working groups, forums and taskforces. Broadly speaking, many of these engagements are governed around two types of arrangements for relationships:

• Formal, structured mechanisms.
• Informal, ad hoc arrangements.

2. These types of arrangement are not exclusive and are to a large extent complementary. Those partners who have written agreements with the Executive also tend to have a range of ongoing informal contacts, although these are likely to be significantly informed by the formal framework.
4. For many participants involved in the research arrangements for relationships are, to some extent, structured around formal, written agreements: examples include the STUC/ Executive Memorandum of Understanding, the Compact between the Executive and the Voluntary Sector and the Civic Forum/ Executive Concordat. In participants' comments on the effectiveness of these agreements, a strong belief emerged that they have brought significant benefits and have improved relationships with the Executive. Some of the benefits of having the written agreement in place were said to be:

• Improving existing relationships with Divisions and Departments.
• Helping to forge new relations with Departments and Divisions that are not a normal point of contact.
• Leading to stakeholder participation in new areas policy.
• Facilitating a consistency of approach.
• Leading to the recognition of the role of partner organisations in the work of government.
• Helping to foster mutual respect for each other's positions between the Executive and partners.

2. Providing a mechanism for improving and building on existing relationships, establishing new links and addressing the inconsistencies in approach to partnership were the main reasons why some formal partnership agreements were seen to be necessary.

3. "The agreement [-the Executive/ STUC Memorandum of Understanding-] has helped us build effective links to other Departments for the first time. We are able to point to real positive outcomes".
   (External participant)

   "I mean that [the inconsistency] actually was one of the reasons why we kind of put the Memorandum of Understanding together in the first instance with the Executive. It was a recognition that there was good relationships in some areas, but it wasn't consistent and wewanted to try and address that and that's going some way toward it,… but I wouldn't say that we're there yet. There's still a lot of work to be done."
   (External participant)

4. Inherent in the formulation of such partnership agreements is the expectation that partners on both sides will take responsibility for actions and for delivery, and a number of participants commented on this.

5. "There's an understanding that the trade unions believe that the Executive will deliver on that and they expect us to deliver our side of it. And so that's mutuality, it's trust, it's respect and it's honesty and I think that's where we come from and that's the skills that are required for a partnership."
   (External participant)

6. While the development of bilateral partnership agreements was felt to have brought significant benefits for organisations and the Executive, there were some reservations about their effectiveness.

7. "I've yet to be convinced that all Departments are taking the MoU seriously".
   (External participant)

   "I've yet to see [Compact] working… There is a desire to have it in place and to see it working but I'm not sure it's working as it was intended to".
   (External participant)

8. Even if agreements were to work consistently, one participant commented that it would be impossible for their organisation to meet the likely demands resulting from an increase in engagement.

9. "You just can't do everything and actually ironically, if the Memorandum of Understanding was working consistently across all Departments, we couldn't resource ourside of it."
   (External participant)

10. Participants who were not covered by a formal bilateral agreement, and who mainly represented the business sector, questioned the need for such agreements. Broadly speaking, business participants regarded formal bilateral agreements for the sector as unnecessary for two reasons. The first being that the sector already enjoys sufficient access to Ministers and civil servants, the second that the sector is able to gain benefits without having a formal partnership structure.

11. "I think [the fact] that we can achieve positive outcomes without a formal agreement demonstrates that it is unnecessary".
    (External participant)

12. In discussions about the need for bilateral partnership agreements, a number of potential disadvantages were highlighted by those opposed to such types of 'contract':

• Formalising relationships which are currently informal but productive could destroy trust and jeopardise current terms of engagement.
• Existing partnership agreements have not necessarily resulted in a consistency of approach across Executive Departments.
• They could lead to a tick box, inflexible approach to engagement.
• Partners could risk losing their autonomy to comment on government actions.

"At the end of the day we don't need a formal structure… that would kill trust, kill relationships, kill consultation".
(External participant)

2. Many of those within this group tended to emphasise the need for informal approaches to developing relationships rather than formal arrangements. It was felt that informality reflects the strength of a relationship and that many positive outcomes have been achieved through this approach.
4. However, despite portraying a largely negative view of formal agreements, a minority of business representatives suggested that their sector should be open to reviewing the position in the future.

5. Is There a Requirement for New Partnership Mechanisms in Scotland?

6. Although the main focus of the research explored existing relationships with the Executive, participants were also asked specifically about whether there is a requirement for new partnership mechanisms. It is worth noting that many had not considered the concept of new mechanisms in any depth prior to the research while for others, the establishment of a Social and Economic Partnership (SEP) was a key strategic aspiration. In addition, consideration of new mechanisms in both the interviews and roundtable discussions was limited. Therefore it is important to be cautious in interpreting views. Nevertheless opinions about new mechanisms were notably different. Reflecting these differing views, three core groups can be identified from the analysis:

• Advocates: This grouping represents those who clearly articulated that they would like to see a new mechanism established in Scotland . Under one third of those interviewed stated that they thought a SEP structure would be beneficial to Scotland. These participants were more likely to represent the Trade Unions, although not exclusively.
• "We need institutions and processes that will achieve unity and consensus across economic and social affairs in Scotland… There is currently a lack of strategic dialogue".
  (External participant)
• Opponents: This grouping consists of those who clearly stated that they do not wish to see a SEP structure created in Scotland . Around one third of those interviewed opposed the creation of a SEP mechanism and again this group tended to be dominated by one particular sector, this time business, although again not exclusively.

" We don't like the European social model at all and would like to see it abolished. We certainly don't want it replicated in Scotland".
(External participant)

• Ambivalents: Representing the largest category, this group consisted of those who did not state a clear view either way and were generally undecided or unsure about the need for new mechanisms. This category encompassed a range of opinion, from those who tentatively supported a new mechanism to those who were more cautious.

"I'm unsure about the need for new mechanisms and importing something from somewhere else into Scotland for the sake of it".
(External participant)

2. In discussions about new mechanisms a range of arguments were cited in support of, or in opposition to, the creation of new mechanisms. These were highlighted by all three different groupings in discussions and are summarised by arguments for and against below.

3. Arguments for the Creation of a Social and Economic Partnership (SEP)

4. Highlighted by both 'advocates' and to some extent 'ambivalents', the points to emerge in favour of a SEP can be summarised under two main themes:

• There is a need to create a forum for social partners for strategic discussion and for improving policy development.
• A SEP mechanism would build better relationships and would address cynicism.

Opportunities for strategic discussion and improving policy development

2. Many of those in favour stated that currently there are no opportunities for partners to engage with each other in strategic dialogue about social and economic issues and that there is an underlying need for this to happen in Scotland.

3. "We're in danger of just ad hoc bits and pieces of work being taken forward without it being properly directed and I think that's what a Social and Economic Partnership would be about."
   (External participant)

4. Participants often viewed the political system as a whole, appraising their relationship with the policy process in terms of both the Executive and the Parliament. While the opportunity of providing evidence to Scottish Parliamentary committees was praised, some felt that this did not go far enough and the creation of a SEP would allow partners to be involved in regular dialogue about overarching social and economic issues. These issues, it was felt, tend to be ignored largely by current committee structures.

5. "We went in and gave our evidence… and then the committee went away and mulled it over and came up with something, presented that to the Minister then the Minister decided what he was going to do. I mean I'm not saying that that isn't one reasonable process for doing these things but it's not necessarily the best one in terms of something like a [X Strategy]. If it is going to be delivered in partnership effectively it should be constructed in partnership as well, arguably."
   (External participant)

6. A number of potential benefits were thought likely to accrue if a new SEP mechanism were to be implemented:

• There would be more consensus around social and economic policy.
• It could potentially be used for blue skies thinking, especially about the future.
• It would lead to better and more transparent policy-making.
• A forum would give partners more direction over early stages of policy development.
• Partners would be able to set the agenda.

2. In addition to collective benefits of a SEP, a small number admitted that it would also lead to greater influence for their organisation.

3. "The main reason why [we] would want to see meaningful social and economic partnership is one: quite openly, that it increases the influence which [we] can have."
   (External participant)

   Building better relationships and addressing cynicism

4. Another major benefit that the idea of a SEP was thought likely to bring was the prospect of improving relationships between social partners and government. These benefits were envisaged in a number of ways.

• It would build trust between Ministers and social partners.
• It would tackle cynicism around politics in Scotland.
• It would demonstrate willingness to share power and would send a positive message about how business is done in partnership.

2. Despite citing positive arguments in favour of the idea of a new mechanism, there was no real consensus among 'advocates' about the nature and role of a SEP. When questioned, participants tended not to describe or define specific roles. Some referred to models elsewhere in Europe on which it was felt a SEP in Scotland could be modelled. However, since many of these mechanisms are concerned with issues which are reserved in the UK, participants were not altogether clear about how a SEP model would operate in a devolved Scotland.

3. Arguments Against the Creation of a Social and Economic Partnership (SEP)

4. Arguments against the creation of a SEP mechanism were cited by both 'opponents' and to some extent 'ambivalents'. The views which emerged focused on two key areas:

• Existing multilateral and bilateral mechanisms are already adequate.
• There is scepticism about the need for a SEP mechanism.

Existing mechanisms are adequate

2. This view tended to dominate arguments against the creation of a SEP. Many participants felt its creation would be unnecessary, the case had not been proven and there was no real need for new arrangements given existing structures. Furthermore, it was felt that any new mechanism would clutter an already full partnership landscape.

3. "I think anything that starts up yet another committee or grouping is simply adding to the bundle of groups that are already there."
   (External participant)

4. A number of participants went further and suggested that there is a need to review the purpose of existing mechanisms as it was felt that sometimes mechanisms continue beyond their useful life.

5. "One of the main aspirations of Community Planning was to rationalise the number of partnerships and de-clutter the partnerships that exist… so anything at all that somehow gets us away from the hundreds of these partnerships that exist now and have existed for a long time …actually some of them are not in any way effective at all."
   (External participant)

6. A minority were against approaches described as "statutory" and critical of anything that got in the way of existing informal relationships which sectors have with the Executive. For example, one business participant argued:

7. "…anything that interrupted bilateral [relationships] - the right of organisations to make their own representations - would never work."
   (External participant)

   Scepticism about the need for new mechanisms

8. There were a number of sceptical points made, including:

• The idea of new mechanisms is characteristic of the type of scheme which would be 'delivered' to partners rather than based on mutual consensus.
• New mechanisms would be largely symbolic, a way of government congratulating itself on bringing people together.
• Partnership isn't working at a local level yet, so is unlikely to at a national level.
• A SEP would encourage greater influence of trade unions.
• It is unclear what purpose a SEP mechanism would have.
• Setting up a SEP might open up new problems.
• It is not possible to import a social partnership model wholesale - what works elsewhere would not necessarily work in Scotland.

General Observations on the Way Forward

2. Despite clear differences in views about the creation of a SEP mechanism, some common themes did emerge from the interviews and roundtable discussions.

• A clear view emerged that what is missing is a focus between partners and government on the big, long-term challenges facing Scotland. In general there was a desire for partnership to 'shift upstream' and consider strategic questions as well as operational/ delivery issues. This view was particularly apparent during the roundtable events.
• There was a strong level of agreement that however the SEP policy discussions proceed, decisions will need to be genuinely co-owned and generated by the partners rather than an Executive initiative that would feel imposed.

"Let the idea emerge from a genuine search for mutual interests with the social partners, because if it's seen as just another product that's been delivered to us, I don't think they'll take kindly to that."
(External participant)

• There was a wish to avoid too much structure and formality. The creative tension arising from a degree of fluidity and uncertainty in the first 4 years of devolution was considered by some to have been, on balance, an advantage - allowing for organic development of ways of working - although one downside was the lack of read across from one area of public life to another.
• There was felt that there is currently an unhelpful amount of partnership "clutter" at both local and national level, drawing unevenly on the resources of different partners. This was mentioned both as an argument for (it could assist rationalisation) and against (it would simply add to the clutter) a new mechanism.
• Internal Executive participants were generally not convinced that fundamentally new ways of working are required and were sceptical over the creation of a new SEP mechanism . The views of internal participants were sometimes coloured by previous, largely negative experience of large multilateral partnership mechanisms. The overall view was that such mechanisms can struggle to justify the resource required to sustain their activity.

SUMMARY Partners were in the main content with their existing bilateral relationships with the Executive, although a number of problems were highlighted. Many external participants felt that partnership agreements had brought about significant benefits for their sector, although there were concerns that such 'contracts' had not been universally applied across the whole of the Executive. There was no clear consensus on the development of new Social and Economic Partnership (SEP) mechanisms. Participants from the trade union sector were clearly in favour of one, while those from the business sector were generally against. Many of those supporting the concept did not propose specific models but rather concentrated on the underlying principles. It is likely that the breadth of discussions about the concept of new mechanisms reflects the early status of the debate in different sectors rather than a strong consensus for change across the social and economic partners. Nevertheless, the case for establishing a multilateral forum for ongoing discussion of the big strategic issues appears to have some weight.