By stewartb

‘An important feature of the pandemic response of the Scottish Government was a pre-existing culture of professionalism, engagement, and collaboration, which, in the Covid-19 pandemic translated into a willingness to look outside of government for advice and expertise.’ 

On Scottish Government actions: ’Rather than divergence demonstrating political opportunism, it reflected better decision-making processes including more effective and meaningful consultation with others, and an appropriately precautionary approach to pandemic response.’ TUC/STUC submission to UK Covid 19 Inquiry (10 January 2024)

By stewartb – a long read

Already a lot of evidence concerning Scotland has been accumulated by the UK Covid 19 Inquiry. Voters who rely on news reports from BBC Scotland or the mainstream media supposedly informing Scotland may hold the view that the Inquiry has been mostly concerned with WhatsApp messages. Moreover, voters in Scotland would be forgiven for thinking that evidence on the performance of the Scottish Government is overwhelmingly negative. If that view remains uncorrected, ‘bias by omission’ and gaslighting tactics will have won out, a serious matter for democracy at any time but especially so in an election year!

Anyone who reviews the actual evidence to the Inquiry – and not just mainstream media coverage – will discover more balance, more nuance and lots of positives too! But how many voters will read for themselves the formal, written submissions and/or the transcripts of public hearings? Too often the news coverage in Scotland has resembled a witch-hunt, looking to take down, to destroy the careers of public servants over their use of WhatsApp rather than report on useful learning from objective, forensic assessments of their substantive professional contributions – good or bad, justifiable or not – to pandemic outcomes in Scotland. 

The purpose of this blog post is to highlight evidence from notable stakeholders who have provided evidence to the Inquiry. Candidly, the positivity may disorientate and confuse those who have been relying for example on BBC Scotland’s coverage of the Inquiry’s Edinburgh sessions. Specifically, the post highlights evidence presented by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC). 

Labour-leaning voters in Scotland would surely be interested in TUC/STUC judgements regarding the attitudes and actions of the SNP in government. Perhaps this explains the omission from BBC Scotland’s coverage!

The Trades Union evidence 

What follows are numerous and in some cases quite lengthy extracts from the Inquiry’s records of TUC and STUC evidence (given with my emphasis). Every effort is made to provide sufficient text in each case to permit the key points to be placed in their appropriate context.

It’s worth beginning with statements that provide an overview of the STUC’s stance. There is no attempt in the STUC’s evidence to paint a picture of perfect harmony between itself and the Scottish Government during the pandemic – nor is that the intention of this blog post: nonetheless, the views stated are telling.

Source: Scottish Trades Union Congress witness statement, for Module 2a (6 July 2023) –  made by Roz Foyer, General Secretary – document reference INQ000103536.

(https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/17192349/INQ000103538.pdf   )

Para 6: ‘The STUC has well established relationships with members of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and other national civil and public bodies in Scotland. The STUC regularly meets with appropriate Scottish Government Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers and senior officials across all portfolios and directorates.’

Para 10: ‘While the STUC supported many of the decisions made by the Scottish Government there were clear areas where we urged them to take action sooner, or where we disagreed with their judgement.’

However: ’In general, engagement with the Scottish Government was positive and it did consider our concerns, even though, as outlined above, it did not always agree with us (or action our concerns) in their final decisions. Where we disagreed, and remained in disagreement, the Scottish Government would generally be in a position to explain their rationale to us.’

…..

Source: TRADES UNION CONGRESS: SUBMISSIONS in ADVANCE of the PRELIMINARY HEARING,  MODULE 2A (27 October 2022)

(https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/TUC-Module-2A-Preliminary-Hearing-Submissions-FINAL.DOCX.pdf)

On level of engagement:

Para 16: ‘… the STUC met with the Scottish Government regularly throughout the pandemic. This included planning meetings twice per week between the Scottish Government and the STUC, as well as lobbying efforts (around lockdown and PPE in particular). This is a notably greater level of engagement than the TUC had with the UK Government.’ (my emphasis)

Para 17: ‘… the STUC had a significant influence in shaping Scottish Government policy and response – for example, in the designation of key workers and steps taken to ensure guidance was followed. These represent areas of divergence from the approach taken by the UK Government.’

…..

Source: TRADES UNION CONGRESS and SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS: JOINT OPENING SUBMISSION IN MODULE 2A (10 January, 2024)

(https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/16204239/M2A-opening-submissions-STUC-and-TUC-16-01-24.pdf) 

Para 2: ‘…. the differing approaches of the UKG (UK government) and Devolved Administrations (‘DAs’) provide illuminating counterpoints. Module 2 has heard evidence of shocking dysfunction in the UKG response, with decision-makers repeatedly oscillating between the pursuit of varying objectives, all against a background of bitter squabbling resembling something of a playground politics. 

‘The decision-making in respect of Scotland is yet to be explored in the oral hearings, but the indications thus far are of a more professional, mature, and open form of decision-making within Scottish Government (’SG’), which resulted in better decisions. So far as the TUC and STUC are particularly concerned, the SG certainly engaged in more open and meaningful consultation with unions, and the Scottish approach generally reflected a better understanding of pandemic response in the workplace.’

On wider relations with the Scottish Government: 

Para 5: ‘An important feature of the pandemic response of the SG was a pre-existing culture of professionalism, engagement, and collaboration, which, in the Covid-19 pandemic translated into a willingness to look outside of government for advice and expertise. As Ms Foyer (General Secretary, STUC) describes in her witness statement:

‘The STUC has a successful history of engagement and working with devolved government in Scotland. For a number of years we have held formal biannual meetings with Scotland’s First Minister. …..  We have frequent engagement with the Deputy First Minister, Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers, and senior officials across all government directorates as required. ….. Alongside formal meetings with Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers, the STUC had open channels of communications with civil servants, key officials, and special advisors where issues could be raised or feedback given on policy decisions and their implementation’.

On engagement during the pandemic:

Para 8: ‘From an early point in the pandemic, regular meetings were also set up between the STUC and Fiona Hyslop (then Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture),

which became the Covid Group meeting and took place on a weekly and then monthly basis throughout the pandemic (until end-March 2022). In March 2020, Ms Hyslop contacted the STUC directly to request its support in pandemic response and seeking input into its response. A regular format and schedule was devised to ensure the meetings were as effective as possible and all participants could appropriately prepare for the meeting.’

Para 12: ‘Although, as outlined in Ms Foyer’s statement, the SG made decisions which the STUC and relevant unions did not agree with, the general view was that the expertise and input of the STUC was considered in a meaningful way. It is noted that Professor Philip Banfield of the British Medical Association describes a similarly constructive experience of engagement. ….’

Comparing engagement by different governments:

Para 13: ‘That is, of course, in stark contrast to the approach as it was in Westminster, typified by a needlessly oppositional approach to consultation with key stakeholders such as unions. The evidence has been described in the TUC’s Module 2 submissions, but it is encapsulated by Sir Patrick Vallance’s (then UK Chief Scientific Adviser) note of Boris Johnson (then UK Prime Minister (‘PM’) describing in a meeting with senior Ministers that he ‘can’t have the bollocks of consulting with employees and trade unions’.’

Para 16: ‘This greater openness (by the Scottish Government) had a positive impact in a range of areas of decision-making, .… The TUC and STUC consider that this positive approach to social partnership will be reflected in many of the key decisions made by the SG, which will be examined in this module.

Examples of difference:

Para 20: ‘The difference in approach (over the matter of financial support for self-isolation) between governments is likely explainable in part due to the SG not sharing the same ideological resistance to sick pay that appears to have been held by the UKG, and particularly the UK chancellor. It is also likely to have been contributed to by the SG’s greater openness to the views of stakeholders such as unions. 

‘In a similar vein, Professor Stephen Reicher, who similarly advocated improved financial support for self-isolation, described the comparatively more engaged approach of the SG with SG Covid-19 Advisory Group, as compared with the UKG and SPI-B. As Professor Reicher describes: ‘poorer people and those from ethnic minorities were between three and six times more likely to break Covid regulations, not because they were less motivated to comply (there were no differences on this score) but because of the practical difficulties of staying home and putting food on the table’.’

Para 21: ‘The difference in approach also reflected the SG’s greater willingness to turn to incentives rather than enforcement (in contrast to the UKG, as Professor Vallance describes in his diaries, always reaching for the stick rather than the carrot). That is something described by Professor Reicher: ‘The [SG] by and large avoided a reliance on punishment to secure adherence, both in terms of its messaging […] and in terms of policies’.

On positive responses to specific issues raised by the STUC:

Para 22: ‘The STUC also worked to highlight the situation for those in the creative industries who were not supported by the UKG’s furlough or Self-Employed Income Support Scheme, both by meetings with government, briefings on gaps in financial support, and via the publication of a report, ‘The Impact of Coronavirus on Hospitality and Creative Workers’. The SG responded positively, launching two funds, the Screen Hardship Fund and the Hardship Fund for Creative Freelancers and committed over £28 million to these funds. 

‘The STUC also brought to the SG’s attention the difficulties faced by taxi drivers, many of whom were not supported by the UKG’s financial support mechanisms. The Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Driver and Operator Support Fund was subsequently introduced, with £62 million committed to plug the gap.’

Para 24: ‘Scotland benefitted from marginally more effective workplace guidance but was similarly hamstrung by the limitations in enforcement of workplace health and safety. In Module 2, the TUC has described that workplace guidance was too often late, lacking in understanding of the practical realities of workplaces, and too discretionary and generic to properly protect workers, particularly those in low-paid and insecure work who are less empowered to raise issues of workplace safety with their employers. In a letter to Alok Sharma (relevant UK minister) on 8 May 2020, the STUC explained their concern that UK workplace guidance ‘effectively leaves it at the employer’s discretion whether they uphold social distancing and prioritise safety and public health’.’

Turning to schools:

Para 27: ‘Several of the TUC and STUC affiliated unions called for a precautionary approach in respect of the use of face masks in workplaces, including in schools. …’

Para 28: This precautionary approach appears to have been more willingly adopted by the SG, as urged by unions, with the UKG lagging behind. .…. Unions recommended that some of these decisions should have been taken earlier, or measures left in place for longer, but the decision-making (by the Scottish Government) generally reflected an appropriate, precautionary approach informed by consultation with unions, other stakeholders, and public health experts.’

Para 29: ‘The UKG lagged behind, it appears in part simply chasing the decision-making in Scotland. On 25 August 2020, Mr Johnson privately bemoaned to his advisors that he was trying to understand the UK’s ‘totally f*cked up’ policy on masks in schools. The following day, Simon Case (then Downing Street Permanent Secretary) shared his explanation with Dominic Cummings (then Chief Adviser to Mr Johnson) that permissive guidance on masks in schools had been recommended ‘weeks ago’ but ‘Because at that stage it was Unions pressing for masks’, the Secretary of State for Education (‘SSE’) was in ‘no-surrender mode and didn’t want to give an inch to the unions so said we should hold firm’. Mr Johnson was said to have given the SSE his ‘full support in this approach’, consistent with him generally backing ‘bullshit ‘no surrender’ ideas’ which he then ‘totally regrets […] later’. It was antithetical to precautionary, mature and open decision-making, and in contrast to the decision-making in Scotland.’

On care homes:

Para 32: ‘The STUC raised concerns from the initial stages of the pandemic regarding the urgent need for PPE for social care workers and financial support in the absence of sick pay for social care workers. The SG established the Social Care Staff Support Fund in June 2020 which was designed to mitigate the financial hardship for those working in social care who were required to self-isolate. Following representation from trade unions this fund was extended until 31 March 2023.’

Para 33: ‘There was meaningful liaison between unions and the SG on the care sector, although some of the fundamental problems facing the care sector workforce and which came to the fore during the pandemic require fundamental reform. 

‘As Professor Reicher describes: “There is evidence that poor staffing conditions contributed to the death toll. Those homes which failed to provide sick pay, or which used bank and agency workers saw higher rates of infection amongst residents. Neither of these findings are particularly surprising. If staff work when infected because they cannot afford not to, or if they move from home to home with the potential to spread Covid not only within but also between homes, there is bound to be a problem. This cannot be addressed without addressing the general employment conditions in the sector. A 2022 Health Foundation report shows over a quarter of the UK’s residential care staff to be living in, or on the brink of, poverty. While Scotland has introduced a minimum wage for care workers of £12 from April 2024, there remains a long way to go. And we will not be able to look after care home residents in future crises unless we also look after care home staff”.’

An overview: 

Para 34:   ‘The different approach of the SG to consultation with stakeholders such as unions is an example of a divergent (and more effective) approach to decision making. There appears also, to have been others.’

Para 35: ‘First, the SG appears to have been quicker to work within clear and agreed frameworks for decision-making. Most notably, the SG implemented the four harms framework, which was introduced in April 2020 and applied throughout the period of pandemic restrictions in Scotland. The Framework was published, as were updates to the Framework, enabling the public to understand how and why decisions were being taken and promoted a culture of transparency in respect of decision-making. The Framework was considered within the ‘Four Harms Group’ which fed into Cabinet meetings. 

‘…. From early on, the SG appears to have been better at setting objectives and frameworks, applying these to decision-making, communicating these both internally and externally, and achieving buy-in, leading to a clearer, more cohesive approach.’

Para 37: ‘… there appears to have been a commitment to understanding the detail of ministerial briefings. Professor Reicher describes being ‘very impressed by First Minister, Cabinet Secretary and others we worked with. In the deep dives it was clear that they […] were on top of their brief, took the issues seriously, understood the issues and cut to the core of the matter with their questions. […] what I experienced in Scotland was very clearly at odds with what I saw and what I have heard about the UK Government, the Prime Minister and their mastery of the brief’.

Para 38: ‘… there appears to have been an important, basic professionalism’ within the SG’.

On devolution and collaborative decision making:

Para 42: ‘The STUC considers that the pandemic response in Scotland, though benefitting from a generally more effective decision-making process, was hamstrung by limits in the arrangements for devolution, including in relation to workplace health and safety, and employment laws.  

‘It is recognised that this Inquiry is unlikely to review the arrangements for devolution, save to the extent that is necessary for the purposes of understanding the relevant decision-making. It is necessary, however, to address the narrative suggested by some (Mr Johnson and others) that the approach in the DAs (a) frustrated the pandemic response by adopting differences in approach, and (b) that those differences in approach cynically served political rather than public health objectives. In the evidence for this module, Alistair Jack suggests, for example, that divergence pursued the SG’s ‘constitutional aim of achieving independence’, and Michael Gove refers to the SG simply wanting to demonstrate its ‘otherness’. As to that narrative, the TUC and STUC make the following observations:

Para 43: ‘First, on analysis, the differences in approach appear to have served public health rather than political objectives and, indeed, are judged well in hindsight. It is difficult to see what criticism could be levelled at the SG for diverging from the UK on 15 March 2020 in banning gatherings of over 500 people, or for taking a more precautionary approach to the use of face masks (when the PM was privately complaining of the UK’s ‘totally f*ucked up’ mask policy). 

‘Rather than divergence demonstrating political opportunism, it reflected better decision-making processes including more effective and meaningful consultation with others, and an appropriately precautionary approach to pandemic response. It would be surprising if, in a future pandemic, either nation adopts an approach which is reticent to recommend face masks, or to ban mass gatherings only weeks prior to a national lockdown.’

Para 45: ‘.. cultural problems with communication and collaboration between the SG and UKG was instilled at a high level in the UKG by the PM. Mr Johnson did not engage in meetings with the leaders of the DAs for fear of it appearing to be a ‘mini-EU’ and he described such meetings during oral evidence as ‘constitutionally a bit weird’. The TUC and STUC consider that this approach bares similarities to the dismissive, at times oppositional, approach which Mr Johnson instilled in respect of engagement with unions and other representative bodies – it reflects a failure to appreciate that transparent, open communication and effective collaboration and consultation lead to improved decision-making, including, indeed especially, in the crisis context. The UKG’s work with the SG can be contrasted with the relationships which existed between the DAs.’

Para 46: ‘…. The evidence suggests that, at times, the SG wished to maintain restrictions but were unable to do so because of uncertainty as to the continuation of funding for furlough. A WhatsApp exchange between Ms Sturgeon and her chief advisor, Liz Lloyd, reveals a picture of the FM learning about crucial furlough developments from public announcements, and late communications (over which SG had no influence or control) leading to avoidable job losses ..’

Concluding remarks in the TUC/STUC’s written submission of 10 January 2024:

Para 50 ‘To some witnesses in Module 2, the deeply unattractive side of the internal dysfunction within UKG was ‘just Westminster’. Correct or otherwise, it cannot be said to be ‘just politics’, as the evidence in Module 2A demonstrates, perhaps unsurprisingly, that a more mature, professional and open form of central government is achievable. It is submitted that the evidence in Module 2A demonstrates the value of a form of government that is open to and meaningfully engages with the views of stakeholders, including trade unions. It is an approach of consultation and engagement which should be embraced and strengthened in a future pandemic.’

…..

Source: Transcript of Module 2A Public Hearing (17 January 2024) – questioning of Roz Foyer, General Secretary, Scottish TUC

Question from Inquiry lawyer: ‘In general terms, what is the STUC’s position on the Scottish Government’s engagement with the STUC during the pandemic? For example, did you find that the Scottish Government was willing to listen to your concerns raised on behalf of your members?’

Answer from Roz Foyer, STUC: ‘Yeah, I would say that in general terms I would describe the engagement that we had as intense and constructive. There was an established relationship there already.

‘The Scottish Government do see trade unions as a key social partner, and they have a collaborative working approach, so we had an established relationship there already, but that relationship intensified during the pandemic because I think the Scottish Government recognised that we could be very helpful in giving them a real picture of what was happening in workplaces, and particularly in workplaces where key workers were working, delivering essential services across the economy.’

…..

Q. ‘I want to just focus on that issue that I raised, which is return of people to office working. This is as we were easing out of the first lockdown in early summer 2020. At the time the Scottish Government’s strategy was to ease restrictions more gradually than the UK Government, and we’ve heard evidence in Module 2 that the UK Government was keen to get workers back into offices and into workplaces. What views did the STUC have on the Scottish Government’s position on the return of workers to offices and workplaces at that time?’

A. ‘So there were some areas where we had concerns that things were moving too quickly, but I think overall we were quite critical of the approach being taken at the time by the UK Government, which we felt in some ways was undermining the more cautious approach of the Scottish Government, and that mixed signalling could be quite confusing to the public in Scotland.’

….

Q. Do you think that the Scottish Government properly listened to the STUC’s concerns prior to announcing the roadmap for the lifting of the first lockdown?

A. I think they did listen, I think they engaged. I don’t think we always got everything we wanted but I think that there was a respectful engagement, in most cases, with the trade unions. I think to some extent issues like statutory sick pay were not in their gift to resolve, that was an issue the UK Government needed to resolve, and I am aware that the Scottish Government did write to UK Government ministers seeking funds to address some of those issues, and, you know, seeking for them to address some of those issues. So the — I think they definitely did listen; that doesn’t mean they always acted. And I think that’s just the nature of things, isn’t it?

…..

Q. ‘… did you ever have the impression that the Scottish Government could have done more on some of the matters that you were pushing but it was easier to attribute blame to the UK Government for not being able to take some of these actions forwards?

A.  ‘I — I often get that impression, in all sorts of areas. The STUC is very active in pushing the Scottish Government just generally to use all of its devolved powers, particularly its fiscal powers, in terms of more progressive taxation, to allow them the budgets to do more, but I also have to acknowledge that it’s difficult to do that and that the powers they have fiscally are limited and, you know, you — it’s very hard for the Scottish Government to overcome ten years of austerity and budget cuts to public services. It’s very hard for the Scottish Government to go beyond their devolved responsibilities.’

And the lawyer addresses the same issue again:

Q. ‘My question was around specific areas or actions that you agreed with the Scottish Government where you felt — or you had the impression that maybe the Scottish Government didn’t push the matter forward and it was easier to attribute blame to the UK Government. Is there anything of that nature during the Scottish Government’s decision-making in the pandemic that you can point to?’

So this time a clearer question is given a clearer response:

A. I don’t think that there’s anything I would specifically point to and say, you know, no, that was complete nonsense, that they were saying this would be difficult to enact. I think where they — I think I could see there was reasonable reasons, budgetary constraints or otherwise, why in some cases they weren’t able to do things, and I don’t think that they were making that up. I think it was the reality — the political reality of the way devolution works, that there were certain things they weren’t able to do that we were calling to happen. So I’m not sure I could point to anything that really stuck out as being something where I thought they were being disingenuous in saying that they were constrained. I think the constraints were very real.’

End note

This is a long blog post – overly long perhaps – written to ‘reveal’ positives in the relationship during the pandemic between key trades union organisations and the present Scottish Government. What comes across is a strong sense of sensible, professional and respectful engagement in which both agreements and disagreements co-exist. And what also comes across is that Scotland, its citizens and businesses, during the pandemic emergency benefited from a longer standing, respectful relationship between the STUC and the SNP in government.

The evidence highlights tangible responses by the Scottish Government urged by the STUC. It reveals instances of the Scottish Government, with trades union support,  seeking to convince the Westminster government to change tack. And it highlights the TUC/STUC’s recognition of the strict limitations of its devolved powers.

Also significantly, it blows away the attempted Tory smear that the Scottish Government sought to ‘attribute blame to the UK Government’ for raw political advantage. As the General Secretary of the STUC states: ‘I think the constraints were very real’!

Might the above evidence be of interest to those that watch, listen to or read BBC Scotland output or read for example the Labour-leaning Daily Record? Perhaps too ‘interesting’ to report? 

It will be ‘interesting’ to see what status the UK Covid 19 Inquiry accords this evidence in its formal reporting.