THAT persistent background noise for Scottish charities is the sound of goalposts being moved.
This week our voluntary sector’s umbrella body gave stark warnings about the millions which could drain from their kitties thanks to the impact of UK cuts on the Scottish block grant. Like their English equivalent, they feared more small organisations catering to vulnerable clients being forced to shut up shop. Soothing noises subsequently emanated from the Westminster Cabinet Office about new growth opportunities for the voluntary sector from a plethora of promised public sector contracts, most especially in welfare to work. Nobody was much soothed.
When these contracts were first mooted by the Department of Work and Pensions the story was that the successful bidder from whatever sector would ensure that at least a third of the resulting work would go to voluntary organisations. In the event the first two major Scottish contracts both went to big private companies, neither of which intends to hand over even 10% to the not-for-profits.
Given not a sniff of work worth £150m over five years was award-winning Scottish social enterprise company the Wise Group, which has an exceptional track record for getting people into sustainable employment. This year it picked up the UK-wide RBS award for measuring the social impact of its services, and the Scottish Government selected the Wise Group to administer its own Enterprise Growth Fund set up to help charities and communities build their contributions.
None of which was enough to impress Iain Duncan Smith’s finest, who handed the contracts to Ingeus Deloitte and Working Links. You may not be familiar with them. You may not be familiar either with the likes of Serco, G4S, A4e. But they are familiar with you. These huge corporates have hoovered up pretty well 90% of the UK Government contracts already issued. Their mantra is that they are more efficient, and more results led.
The jury is not hurrying back to endorse either claim. There are too many stories of easier-to-place clients being cherry-picked by some of these organisations which often pocket more per “successful placement” than the wage enjoyed by the person employed. And too many instances of an inability to see the claimant as any more than a box to be ticked along the road to picking up the DWP’s cheque.
There have been some particularly unsavoury stories from the assessment process for incapacity benefit where a French-owned firm has allegedly been giving a whole 10 minutes of its time to each assessment process regardless of the severity of the incapacity concerned.
Nobody should set their face against a genuinely competent, well-motivated private source of public service delivery and, in fact, the Wise Group bid for the Scottish contract included provision for 25% to the private sector. But there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy around the pitch being made by the corporate beneficiaries of Government largesse, one of whose executives was recently heard boasting to a US audience just how much profit could be harvested. It must be so, given the remuneration enjoyed. The Ferrari-driving boss of giant outsourcing company Serco enjoys a £5m package whilst his poor relation at G4S has to scrape by on £3.8m. Considering the outrage at the pay packet of council chiefs, the silence over the rewards enjoyed by their private sector equivalents is positively deafening.
The latest reckoning is that the UK taxpayer is chucking some £79 billion worth of contracts to the companies who take over council or departmental services. And the ironic twist in this tale is that the big boys, in areas where they lack the necessary experience or workforce, will sub-contract work to charities and voluntary workers who subsidise the exercise through low pay and cheap deals.
How we deliver public services will undoubtedly change in response to changing needs and squeezed budgets. Everyone will be looking for that very loud bang from a shrinking buck. All the more reason to make sure Government money goes into essential proven projects and not the pockets of the fatter cats in this market place.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article