Suffolk council plans to outsource virtually all services

carolt

Orpheo wrote: »

Schools themselves will not be included unless they become a privately run academy - this already happens, my daughter goes to one. It is a good school in terms of results, but then again they only take high achieving children from the local primary schools in spite of claiming to be non-selective. Their campus is amazing, sculptures, art, swimming pools, gardens. Lovely plush furniture in the head's office. It is a pity that money is spent on all that and yet my daughter had to write out the questions before answering them in a mock maths SAT test because the papers had to be re-used, it is a pity that her text books are tatty and coverless, it is a pity that we are constantly bombarded with letters asking for "voluntary contributions" £5 for this book, £3 for that book, £8 towards materials for tech, and so on.

The local authority uses a private company to manage its "people services." This private company has taken 6 months to clear me to work as a supply teacher in the authority (recently moved here) and I'm still waiting. All hoops have long been jumped through, successful interview, CRB check is clear (been CRB checked 6 times in the last 10 years, used to be £80 a pop, now £40, from the taxpayer to Capita), all my paperwork done, I'm just still waiting. I imagine the longer it takes to process, the higher the bill to the taxpayer. This company (not Capita) already dominates most services provided by the authority.

I am all for making the public sector more efficient and cost effective, but these contractors are not doing this, they are suckling at the teat. As for the schools, I want every penny spent on educating the children, not on outrageously luxurious leather sofas for the offices.

Great post.

I've worked for one of the big contracting organisations, who also ran some schools directly - it was ENTIRELY about profits. Really shocking.

Heyman_2

carolt wrote: »

Nightmare. So now we'll all pay more, as we'll also be paying (a) for all these companies to make a profit, (b) for all these companies' executives to be suitable 'rewarded', and, best of all, (c), all of their activities will be closed to scrutiny by the public, public audits etc.

So look forward to loads of backhanders, lots of Tory councillors and their mates and companies doing very nicely out of the taxpayers' largesse. And lots of minimum wage employees with no job security actually doing the front-line work = no interest in doing job, falling standards etc, as the OP points out.

Obviously, it will all cost more, and be less efficient and motivated by political dogma, but that's OK - the taxpayers will be footing the bill. :eek:

For once, I entirely agree Carol. It is a recipe for disaster - you will get some people here jumping for joy at the prospect of privatisation but the reality is that once you involve the private companies the motivation becomes all about maximising profit at the expense of the community.

You only have to look as far as the train companies or the utility companies to see what will happen, but I think you've made the point more effectively.

amcluesent

>So now we'll all pay more<

Yep. Duty of Directors to maximise returns to shareholders, so you're talking a 20% profit margin minimum. Plus 5% of contract value going in auditing and checking against shirking by the contractor, so 25% more costs right off. Plus the up-front costs of letting contracts and negotiating contract variations using m'learned friends rather than just asking Fred in the next office in the Town Hall. Then finger-pointing between suppliers who blame each other for nothing getting done. And the first to be 'right sized' will be the old timers who actually know what needs doing. Suffolk will come to a halt!

That said, which companies will be coining it so I should buy shares? Serco, Capita, ...

bendix

Yes. Ummmm. Because profit is . . . ummmm . . bad.

Bonia77

In principle I agree with some posters above, but please remember that non-for-profit does not mean low cost to taxpayer.

You can actually provide services at lower cost by private companies, as they 'might' be better at keeping their costs down. :-)

My main concern will be the transparency of the whole tendering process

Heyman_2

bendix wrote: »

Yes. Ummmm. Because profit is . . . ummmm . . bad.

It's bad if it comes at the expense of providing a good, accountable service and not one provided by a faceless private sector company that has no incentive to provide a good service once they've won the contract.

Bonia77

Heyman wrote: »

It's bad if it comes at the expense of providing a good, accountable service and not one provided by a faceless private sector company that has no incentive to provide a good service once they've won the contract.

As if council cared about providing good services.....

Heyman_2

Bonia77 wrote: »

As if council cared about providing good services.....

You try voting a private company out of office!

wherediditallgothen

bendix wrote: »

Yes. Ummmm. Because profit is . . . ummmm . . bad.

I understand what you mean, but in the case of schools I consider profit to be sending well educated and prepared kids to the next level of education, or work depending on the level of education they are currently at.

robin_banks

Bonia77 wrote: »

As if council cared about providing good services.....

If they don't provide the services, vote councillors out. If staff don't perform get rid.

If these companies breach contracts and believe me they will you could be stuck with them for a very long time and it won't be cheaper.