A hell of a lot of waste goes on in public services

How do we stop the carpet-baggers running off with the silver?

It is fashionable, these days, to refer to the state as a commissioner of services rather than a provider. From health to education, maritime rescue to employment services, the state - in the form of local as well as central government - is commissioning the services it once provided.

Inevitably, the people once responsible for managing a service are stepping back from the frontline and learning how to navigate the tendering and procurement processes that are part and parcel of spending taxpayers' money.

But, according to the OECD, “the volume of transaction and the close interaction between public and private sectors create multiple opportunities for private gain and waste at the expense of taxpayers”. Minimising the risk of fraud, corruption and mismanagement of public funds requires “transparency throughout the entire public procurement cycle”: taxpayers and service users are better protected when the public can help public servants hold private providers to account.

So how does the hands-off approach that seems to be commonplace in the UK help make sure public money is delivering public gain?

A survey by the OECD shows the UK is the only country out of 34 major economies that does not allow the public to see information about the selection and evaluation criteria. This means it is difficult to know if the recipient of public money is spending it as agreed. Nor does the UK reveal tender documents and only sometimes will it justify its decisions. And, if contracts are modified after being awarded, there is no policy to reveal this to the public.

At a local level this has the effect of taking power away from the local commissioners who, when they can see money has been spent on failed promises and missed targets, should be demanding delivery or remedy.

Just look, for example, at the myriad organisations that have sprung up to provide employment related services to local authorities. The range of services and the variety of programmes is befuddling and with no possibility of public scrutiny, local authorities are on their own when it comes to trying to hold their private-sector providers to account.

This is not a case of big companies muscling-in. Small, so-called “social enterprises” are involved too. With colourful stories and fresh-faced bravado they sell their services with, it would seem, no hope of delivery.

For the Newhams, Tower Hamlets and Southwarks, for example, this must be deeply frustrating: knowing they have paid out, have received nothing in return and face months of arguing and unaffordable legal bills if they try to recover their money. This is nothing compared to the impact on taxpayers, let alone the people that should have received the support and help that was offered, paid for and never delivered.

Perhaps public services need public scrutiny to help our remaining public servants stop the carpet-baggers from grabbing the silver. At the moment they seem pretty ineffectual but I would argue that it’s not all their fault.

Photograph: Getty Images

Spencer Neal is a reformed publisher who now advises on media and stakeholder relations at Keeble Brown. He writes about the ironies and hypocrisies that crop up in other peoples' businesses. He is also an optimist.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.