Quick links

UNISON

Site search

Join UNISON

Site navigation

Features

USEFUL LINKS

Positively Public
UNISON’s campaign against privatisation of public services.

Private Finance Initiative
Our run-down on PFI and Public Private Partnerships.

PFI in local government
Links to useful documents that contain information about PFI in local government.

Competition in NHS leads to higher death rates
New report shows that hospitals forced to compete against each other for patients are more concerned with cutting costs than the quality of healthcare.

Link to a document on this siteUNISON response to 'Tackling poor performance in local government'
UNISON represents 850,000 staff who work in local government services. We therefore have a strong interest in the proposals contained in the consultation paper. These proposals are based on the flawed framework of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

To read Acrobat PDF files you need Acrobat Reader software, which is available free of charge from the Link to an external websiteAdobe website in both PC and Mac format.

The private sector is being hailed as the white knight for struggling councils. But, reports Demetrios Matheou, billions spent on outside management would be better spent on in-house staff and upgrading facilities

Knights in shining armour?

Talk about rubbing salt into the wound. Having publicly humiliated several local authorities by suggesting that they were the most badly run in the country, the government is now suggesting that private sector managers be the ones to sort them out.

This is, of course, just another riff on the philosophy that has bred PFI, a belief in the private sector as white knight to any organisation in the public realm.

And with similar moves in the health service and in education, we could be looking at a trend every bit as insidious as PFI.

The object of the government’s attentions is the 13 councils identified as the most badly run in the country, in last year’s “comprehensive performance assessment”.

In allegedly the most thorough assessment so far of council “performance”, the Audit Commission looked at all 150 unitary authorities and county councils, classifying them on a scale of excellent to poor. It is the 13 “poor” authorities stuck at the bottom of this local government league table that are now coming under scrutiny.

Whitehall is testing the waters with private sector firms, with a view to their overhauling the top managements of those authorities who don’t cut the mustard.

Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been in talks with companies that include management consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers and are thought to also involve KPMG.

Stephen Clare, PWC's business unit leader for public services, told the Guardian that "the government doesn't believe that the ways in which local authorities can be improved reside in the public sector alone".

Ministers were looking for a "mixed economy solution" to improving the poor local government performance, Clare said. He could envisage his consultants helping to re-organise the management structure of councils, bringing in stronger project management and looking at whether councils needed to enter into public-private partnerships to improve their services.

He said that in some cases his private teams would want to work with experienced local government professionals.

Such talk will anger the Local Government Association, which believes that councils should be allowed to solve their own problems, using organisations such as its semi-autonomous Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA)

And Owen Davies, UNISON’s senior national officer for local government, derides the posited introduction of private sector trouble-shooters into town halls as “another kick in the teeth for local government professionals.

“Management in the public sector has its difficulties,” he adds, “but UNISON believes that they can be tackled without bringing in expensive outsiders. The IDeA does everything that PricewaterhouseCoopers can offer”.

UNISON has been vociferously opposed to the “name and shame” review, not least because the money – estimated at £1billion - and management skills expended on it could have been better directed towards staff recruitment and pay increases, as well as training, upgrading buildings and equipment.

Indeed, such a sum could have been an enormous boon to improving performance - without the ignominies afforded by propping up a league table.

“Without adequate resources and a well-paid and well-trained workforce, no council can be expected to do a good job,” says Davies.

It is believed that, while courting firms such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, the government has also appointed a lead official to assess whether each of the poorly performing councils has a realistic chance of improving its services without outside help.

But the chances that this will bear fruit are slim, considering that an incursion of private sector managers into the public sector is already underway. In education, private sector firms have taken over the running of local education authorities, for example Islington and Hackney.

While in the health service, there is currently a shortlist of approved management groups – from the public and voluntary sectors, as well as private – being lined up to do the same for hospitals with low league table scores.

Demetrios Matheou

THE SALFORD EXPERIENCE

At least one local authority is seeking to challenge its league table ranking in the courts.

Salford City Council was one of the 30 authorities rated in the CPA as “weak” – the category above “poor’ in the review.

This was a surprise to the authority, which believes that it deserved - and was led to expect - a better outcome.

There are also fears that the comparatively poor assessment could have an immediate and very palpable effect on the council – the loss of £1 million of funding for its housing programme.

Salford is seeking a judicial review to contest the Audit Commission’s findings.

“This is about natural justice,’ says
Ian Andrew, Salford’s communications and public relations manager. “We were expecting a ‘fair’ rating and had no warning that it would be otherwise. We only found out a few days before the publication of the report. We had no opportunity for appeal, no opportunity to even query it and find out why.”

The council believes that its rating came as a result not of the week-long investigations made in person by Audit Commission inspectors, but of a questionnaire that had to be supplied regarding its housing strategy.

The damagingly low scoring of that, says Andrew, flew in the face of the authority’s record on housing and regeneration, which has led to its being one of the leading recipients of the government’s Housing Market Renewal Fund for urban regeneration.

“We were surprised by the rating we were given for that special area of our performance,” says Andrew. “We are concerned that because of the rating we have been given we may lose £1 million of funding to implement our housing strategy next year. That would be a severe penalty, and one that we don’t deserve.

“And ironically,” he adds, “it would effect any plans we have to improve our performance.”

LOTS MORE FEATURES

Including stress in the workplace, getting out of debt and the pensions crisis more...
UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ. Telephone: 0845 355 0845.
© Copyright 2008
UNISON plus
for Personal Accident Insurance
Investor in People