With spectacular timing, the government managed to launch its public services reform white paper on the day that Southern Cross, the failed and financially-challenged owner of 750 care homes, threw in the towel and walked away. As ministers spoke of their desire to ease the path of the private sector into health, education and other parts of the welfare state, the last rites were being given to this toxic symbol of all that can go wrong once profit usurps social mission.
Was this a warning that outsourcing should be abandoned altogether? Even if we wanted to do so it would be difficult. Independently provided public services are already well established. According to the open public services white paper, at least 40% of local authority spending already goes on contracts to the private and voluntary sectors; nearly half of all councils have outsourced refuse collection; 55% of social housing is provided by housing associations.
The drive to make public service provision more "diverse", then, is not a new one. There was very little in the prime minister's speech on Monday that we have not heard before, either from him, or from his Labour predecessors. Choice, decentralisation, provider diversity and fairness were New Labour mantras too. When the white paper asserts: "What matters is the quality of service, not the ownership model," the link to Tony Blair's famous dictum: "What matters is what works," is explicit.
So why does David Cameron feel compelled to publish the white paper now? Why push the need for change with such enthusiasm? The answer is, in part, that ministers have failed to make the case for reform.
The NHS reform bill was mangled, not least because the government failed to demonstrate the benefits, if any, of diverse provision. In local government, Suffolk county council, essentially a test bed for the white paper vision at municipal level, has abandoned its plans to outsource hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of services amid public outcry, and ditched its leader and chief executive in the process.
Even the voluntary sector and social enterprises, the supposed winners from the coalition's public services revolution, are now openly sceptical about who exactly will benefit. Peter Holbrook, chief executive of the Social Enterprise Coalition, and no defender of the public sector status quo, has warned that the white paper reforms simply pave the way for private sector domination of public sector markets.
The Work Programme, the coalition's £5bn welfare to work scheme, and a model for public service reform, is a case in point. This was touted as a "boost for the big society" by ministers, and yet 90% of the prime contracts have gone to big corporates, the only organisations with the financial muscle to bid low for contracts and bankroll services under the payment-by-results scheme.
Ministers argue that charities will reap the benefits of becoming subcontractors to the programme's prime contractors. Not so, said some charities, we were just "bid candy", hired to add a little "big society" sparkle to the corporate supply chain. Some say the "benefits" on offer are so meagre they would have to subsidise the contract from reserves. Last month, St Giles Trust, a charity praised by ministers as just the kind of organisation they want to be involved in the Work Programme as a specialist provider, said it was simply financially unviable for it to get involved.
The public fears that reform is a cover for spending cuts and privatisation. Staff working in public services fear it's about cutting pay, pensions and job security. Charities worry they are being taken for a ride. Trust is in short supply. There is a case for innovation and reform, but it is beginning to feel as though this government no longer has the authority to make it.
by Patrick Butler taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/jul/12/public-services-reform-agenda-losing-allies
Was this a warning that outsourcing should be abandoned altogether? Even if we wanted to do so it would be difficult. Independently provided public services are already well established. According to the open public services white paper, at least 40% of local authority spending already goes on contracts to the private and voluntary sectors; nearly half of all councils have outsourced refuse collection; 55% of social housing is provided by housing associations.
The drive to make public service provision more "diverse", then, is not a new one. There was very little in the prime minister's speech on Monday that we have not heard before, either from him, or from his Labour predecessors. Choice, decentralisation, provider diversity and fairness were New Labour mantras too. When the white paper asserts: "What matters is the quality of service, not the ownership model," the link to Tony Blair's famous dictum: "What matters is what works," is explicit.
So why does David Cameron feel compelled to publish the white paper now? Why push the need for change with such enthusiasm? The answer is, in part, that ministers have failed to make the case for reform.
The NHS reform bill was mangled, not least because the government failed to demonstrate the benefits, if any, of diverse provision. In local government, Suffolk county council, essentially a test bed for the white paper vision at municipal level, has abandoned its plans to outsource hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of services amid public outcry, and ditched its leader and chief executive in the process.
Even the voluntary sector and social enterprises, the supposed winners from the coalition's public services revolution, are now openly sceptical about who exactly will benefit. Peter Holbrook, chief executive of the Social Enterprise Coalition, and no defender of the public sector status quo, has warned that the white paper reforms simply pave the way for private sector domination of public sector markets.
The Work Programme, the coalition's £5bn welfare to work scheme, and a model for public service reform, is a case in point. This was touted as a "boost for the big society" by ministers, and yet 90% of the prime contracts have gone to big corporates, the only organisations with the financial muscle to bid low for contracts and bankroll services under the payment-by-results scheme.
Ministers argue that charities will reap the benefits of becoming subcontractors to the programme's prime contractors. Not so, said some charities, we were just "bid candy", hired to add a little "big society" sparkle to the corporate supply chain. Some say the "benefits" on offer are so meagre they would have to subsidise the contract from reserves. Last month, St Giles Trust, a charity praised by ministers as just the kind of organisation they want to be involved in the Work Programme as a specialist provider, said it was simply financially unviable for it to get involved.
The public fears that reform is a cover for spending cuts and privatisation. Staff working in public services fear it's about cutting pay, pensions and job security. Charities worry they are being taken for a ride. Trust is in short supply. There is a case for innovation and reform, but it is beginning to feel as though this government no longer has the authority to make it.
by Patrick Butler taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/jul/12/public-services-reform-agenda-losing-allies
No comments:
Post a Comment