The last of the Progress debates, the productivity discussion was also one of the liveliest, and personally most enjoyable debates across the three days. In her opening statement, Nita Clarke introduced the topic as ‘the most important issue of our time’, a bold statement, but not without merit – low productivity is one of the principle reasons why the average worker is not feeling the benefit of a growing economy. There was universal agreement on the panel that this was not a new phenomenon, but one that had got significantly worse since the financial crisis, and needed tackling now.
Alison McGovern MP opened by declaring that she wished the use of the word ‘productivity’ would be dropped, as it brings with it the notion that this is a problem of people not working hard enough, rather than working inefficiently, which is different. Nicola Smith of the Trade Unions Congress built on this point, introducing the benefits of high levels of productivity to the individual – greater efficiency gives more time to spend on other aspects of life – and reminding everyone that British workers spend longer at work than the European Union average, despite poor productivity figures.
Both Alison and Craig Beaumont brought perspectives on some of the issues restricting productivity growth. The member of parliament for Wirral South, when responding to a question regarding focusing on the higher productivity sectors such as car making, stated that in her experience people in the local community found access to these sectors difficult. Craig highlighted a similar problem, in that without access to funding and infrastructure investment, many small businesses that could contribute to higher productivity are prevented from doing so. These are both areas in which government intervention and support, however frowned upon by the right, must be essential.
From a personal point of view, two interesting thoughts stood out. First, that the focus of productivity remedies in the United Kingdom must focus on the micro as well as the macro side of economics. Productivity is about the individual in front of the desk or on the production line, and unless they are given opportunity, incentives and encouragement to work more efficiently, then any government plans however well intentioned are unlikely to be successful. This means working with businesses and institutions to remove red-tape and unnecessary bureaucracy, whilst also incentivising the sharing of the proceeds of growth.
Second, an interesting question arose regarding the definition of productivity from a member of the care sector. We tend to focus our analysis on the financial performance of individuals and organisations, but is that really how we should assess how productive someone in the health or care sectors is? Financial efficiency is obviously part of the equation, and no-one in the NHS wants more central targets and quotas, but much of the cynicism regarding private sector engagement in the health and care sectors surely stems from this money first approach, and we need to find a broader range of productivity and performance measurements.
The debate could have gone one for another hour or so, and it was a shame to leave some issues unanswered. However, as one audience member passionately pleaded, the left has an opportunity and responsibility to shape the debate on productivity around people’s lives, giving them a compelling vision of what a future of more efficient working, fairer pay, better services and greater leisure time would look like to them. At a time when the party faces division, there cannot be many out there who would not rally around that.
———————————
Mathewe Bennett is a member of Progress. He tweets @MatheweBennett
———————————