From my many conversations with him when he was Third
Sector Minister, I know he thinks deeply about how to expand the role of our
sector in public service provision. So I have been disappointed so far that he
has not tackled this issue.
In advance I wrote to Ed to argue for a more radical
agenda, about entrenching citizen rights in legislation.
I wrote;
Dear Ed,
When you served as
the country’s first Minister for the Third Sector, I enjoyed working with you
on the very first third sector delivery plan. Great strides were made, but it
is now time to go much further if our citizens are to have the public services
they deserve.
You will be setting
out Labour’s initial ideas on how to take public service reform further at the
Hugo Young Lecture on Monday. As you know, I have always been a huge supporter
of giving citizens real choice and voice in our public service in order to
provide the services our citizens need.
Over the course of
this parliament, the Government has made obeisances to this vision. It has
extended the rights to challenge and acquire assets and these are strongly
supported in our sector. We also welcomed the cross-party support for Chris
White MP’s Social Value Act. Bringing
such community and citizen action into our public services should mean that
power flows from those at the centre to the users of public services. It should
mean that people have a say on the decisions – in health, employment or
whenever they are at their most vulnerable – that affect their lives.
However, despite
these developments, it will not surprise you to learn that the ambition of the
Government’s vision on public service reform has been only partially realised
in its delivery. I am writing to you today to urge you to learn from these
mistakes as you put together your plan for public services reform.
Crucially, the
Government has made two significant errors.
The first concerns
monopoly. Public sector monopolies on key services were never the way to
empower citizens. However, the breaking open of these monopolies has been
managed poorly. Consider the example of the restructured health commissioning
system. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 promised to create a locally-led
commissioning structure, led by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) with much closer
connections to their communities.
Private sector
companies have in fact been highly aggressive in their tactics and have
cornered the market with their purchasing power. Government policies have aided and abetted
these practices. There is an over-reliance on competitive tendering which has
favoured the large-scale private sector at the expense of more citizen-focused
organisations. While small and local organisations continue to struggle to get
a hearing from CCGs in many cases, recent figures even showed that CCGs have
spent over £5 million on legal fees alone to avoid litigation from private
providers.
To overcome this
imbalance, charities and social enterprises have tried valiantly to work with
the private sector. However this has proved extremely challenging at times. In
the Work Programme, for example, several private-sector prime providers have
been guilty of poor treatment of civil society subcontractors, including
failing to refer sufficient clients, and refusing to lessen the degree of financial
risk to which subcontractors are exposed. This has seen many community
organisations who enter into such agreements being ‘set up to fail.’ It has
reduced the diversity and expertise of the provider market as well-regarded,
skilled, specialised civil society organisations such as St Mungo’s have been
forced to pull out of delivery on grounds of cost, to the immense detriment of
those who would benefit from their services.
The result is that
there exist now in our country large deserts of disempowerment where large,
private companies dominate service
delivery contracts and relegate community-focused providers to the margins. A
number of high-profile scandals – including recent allegations of significant
overcharging by two major companies - reflect the pitfalls of giving so much
responsibility to a handful of private organisations. It reflects the folly of
replacing public sector monopolies with private sector oligopolies.
Secondly there is
the question of citizens’ rights. Citizens’ rights are both a key component of
good public services and a solution to the current problem.
The Government’s
Localism Act 2012 gave citizens new rights, such as the Right to Challenge,
which provide communities with new opportunities to get involved with their
local services. However, these rights and the rhetoric behind them have
suffered from a lack of support and follow-through. As the problems with the
Government’s public services plans have accumulated, their appetite for serious
public service reform appears to have waned.
We need a renewed
focus on more developed citizens’ rights in our public services. Paying
lip-service to citizens’ rights is not enough. Public services will only
empower citizens, build their capabilities and give people control and agency
over their lives, if they have a real say in the design and direction of the
services they use.
I have been
impressed by your rhetoric on citizens’ rights but I want you to go further. I
believe that the next Government needs to commission a full review across every
area of our public services that should seek outline the scope of citizens’
rights across every interstice. From health to welfare, from employment to
justice, and their commissioning, design and delivery.
I suggest that this
review give serious weight to establishing two basic rights for citizens and
communities.
The first is a
‘right to voice’ for members of the public. ACEVO previously proposed this in
our official response to the Open Public Services white paper. This would
formalise the principle that citizens and communities should by default have a
say in the design and direction of public services through collaborative and
community-based commissioning procedures.
The second is a
‘right to choice.’ This right would stress the importance of meaningful choice
between different approaches to service delivery - for example, by enabling
health care recipients to choose home- or community-based forms of treatment
and support wherever possible. These sensitive decisions are best made by
individuals and their families, not by bureaucrats.
These rights should
made law. They should be enshrined in appropriate legislation, and in
statements of practice such as the NHS constitution, which should outline
mechanisms for enforcement and redress. I propose that the Crown Representative
for the Voluntary Sector be given a clear responsibility for holding government
to account for the implementation and delivery of these rights. This would also
help ensure that these are developed with citizens in mind, alongside
citizen-focused community service providers that deliver genuinely different
alternatives for users to choose from.
I believe that
robust national leadership is essential if we are to move towards a new,
empowering model for our public services. The implementation of public service
reform has too often emphasised narrow cost savings rather than the engagement,
collaboration and social value that come with truly intelligent commissioning
processes. This worked against collaborative, community and citizen-focussed
organisations. It has too often worked for large private and public sector
interests, against civil society and citizens.
Establishing and
promulgating proper rights to choice and voice in our public services will help
break the oligopolies accruing around our public services. It will give
citizens a real stake and say in the services that matter to them. I hope that
you agree and that you will do what is required to realise this important
vision.
Yours sincerely,
Sir Stephen Bubb
So tonight I'm looking forward to a renewed commitment
from Ed, to citizens and communities and their public services, and to how our
sector can deliver exactly that. Strange parallels with David Cameron's Hugo
Young lecture a few years back - when he was Leader of the Opposition - on the
Big Society. We spoke privately beforehand about ACEVO's work in our 'Replacing
the State' project, and he was taken by our ideas. Will be interesting to see
how he responds to this evening's speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment