The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Private sector greed didn't cause Winterbourne View abuse

A meaningful response from the left must consider how trade unions should or could have made a difference.

Winterbourne View victims' families
A statement is read on behalf of victims' families. Source: Getty

So the Winterbourne View Eleven have been sentenced. Six are starting prison sentences, and the over five have been given suspended sentences. None will ever be able to work in care settings again, assuming the current CRB system remains in place.

The reaction of the Left to the horrific abuses at Winterbourne View, both when it was uncovered and when the Serious Case Review was published in August, has been much as you would expect. Some lay the blame squarely at the door of capitalist excess, suggesting that if the profiteers were driven out, everything would be just fine. Others, operating in the New Labour managerialist tradition, say the blame lies in Care Quality Commission's regulatory failures. Polly Toynbee, to her credit, managed to cover both:

Cameron's privatising zeal looks even less enticing in the wake of this week's two care home scandals [Castlebeck was the other]. The "dead hand of the state" looks rather more welcoming than the grasping hand of private equity....

Anger at abuse at Winterbourne View hospital landed harder on the regulator, Care Quality Commission, than on Castlebeck, the company that took £3,500 a week for hiring cheap thugs as carers. The CQC confessed that ignoring a whistleblower was unforgivable - but the regulator should long ago have blown the whistle on itself and warned its task was impossible on its current resources....

If standards of care in England are to rise to a premium standard, then the CQC requires a radical overhaul. At present, it is underfunded, understaffed - even if its current high level of vacancies are filled - and its inspections are neither frequent enough nor sufficiently detailed.

All fair enough, but it still misses the main point: eleven otherwise law-abiding people chose to engage in the sadistic abuse of very vulnerable people. The venture capitalists didn't make any additional money out of that abuse, and while the CQC might have stopped the abuse before it got going, that doesn't alter the fact that these eleven people wanted to abuse those in their care.

Taking care homes back under state control, while it may be a good idea for other reasons, won't ensure that such abuse never happen again. Nor will restructuring the CQC, welcome though that is too as one means of improving care.

What will stop such abuse, I contend, is a socialist approach to public service quality - an approach that starts with the people who deliver those public services, which empowers them to stand up for those they are serving, and makes them want to.

For socialists, workers claiming control of the quality of public services - in a manner integral to the defence of their terms and conditions - should lie at the heart of the labour movement's agenda. Union activists could do worse than take GDH Cole's advice from 90 years ago, when he dreamed of a society based on self-regulating guilds, focused not just on worker conditons, but on the quality and social usefulness of work produced:

It is upon the Trade Unions that the brunt of the struggle will fall. It is upon our success in laying the foundations of the Guilds even under capitalism that the chances of Guild Socialism really depend, and the problem of the transition to Guild Socialism is therefore primary a problem of trade union development. (My emphasis.)

Cole's dream of a Guild Socialist Britain may have been just a dream, but today's public sector labour movement could do worse than aspire to his vision, by:

1) Acknowledging that, while it's perfectly legitimate to defend the public sector as best we can from Tory attack, this doesn't mean what the public sector provides is perfect, and that we also have a responsibility to ensure that the kind of abuse seen at Winterbourne View ceases; arguments about the 'logic of capital', and the consequent alienation of workers, are strong and valid, but they must be countered by equally strong and valid displays of solidarity, public service ethos and 'professional pride' (the idea of the creation of a Royal College of Teaching is interesting in this regard, though I'm not sure the 'Royal' bit is needed);
 

2) Seeking to persuade the 'powers that be' in the labour movement (the party and the unions) to develop clear strategies for the development of self-regulating codes of conduct (the NUJ's code is a good example), which in time become more effective as a guarantee against inadequate public service than anything the state can impose.

3) Taking concrete steps at local levels towards the establishment or revitalisation of Trades Councils, which task themselves not just with the business of co-ordinating resistance and mitigating the worst effects of the current assault by government, but also with the creation of new class-conscious agreements between service provider and service user. In other words, labour activists should be seeking to develop, for a new age, the civic guilds envisaged by Cole:

The [Trades] council would exist to make articulate the civic point of view, the vital spiritual and physical demands of the people, and to coordinate with the various guilds which would have entrusted to them the task of supplying these demands. To date, the trade union movement has been notably absent from the debate about Winterbourne View. This is understandable, when terms and conditions of its members are its main agenda (I would also hazard a guess that very few of the eleven convicted abuses were union members.). But if public services are to be defended in their totality, there's a bigger job to be done that looking after the public servants; we need to ensure that those they serve are looked after too.        

8 comments

bill23's picture

The public sector are also to blame as anybody who has tried to look after their folks will know. The so called chief executive - with no shareholders or and a job for life - of West Dorset is totally responsible for the death of my parents and at least one other in Lyme Regis. Corby councillors also have blood on their hands, and I suspect this is true of all councils if one looks close enough. These parasites can and will do what they like because there is nothing that we can do short of withholding council tax.
With a modern legal system that wasn't based on precedent (the earth goes around the sun shysters) many councillors/freemasons would be in jail. If this was China some Lyme Regis councillors would be executed!

The conservatives have signed their own death warrant when they say we are all in it together, while the public can see barley educated councillors pulling in up to 200k pa. Good way to start a riot!

Posh Tosh's picture

Venture capitalist send ill-equipped soldiers to fight oil wars for other countries, the Palace at Westminster has the place full of its Yes and Yo men that uses pensioners money and taxpayers money to fly them there to die. It does not hurt the yes men whom would run, as cowards, from conflict where guns are pointed. I feel that when a politician loses his/her seat they ought be sent to do bomb disposal in afghoonistan...It might just get them working for the people.

kevin morris's picture

Sadly, cruelty is not an occasional throwback to some remote Dickensian past.
Things like this happen, at least in part because work in the care sector has a low status and wherever it is performed it is usually low on resources. I'm sorry to say that abuse has always happened and will continue to do so.

In 1975 and briefly, I worked in a local authority run mental hospital on one of the 'low grade' adult male wards. Nursing staff were qualified and unionised. Pay and conditions, though not brilliant, comparable with other nursing work. 'Low grade' (a terrible term, which hopefully is no longer used) patients can be difficult and it can be an area where improvements or progress can be extremely small, but I was shocked at what I saw on the ward I worked on.

One patient had the greatest difficulty walking. Several of the staff thought he used this to get others to do things for him. On one day, as an afternoon shift staff nurse walked onto the ward to begin his shift, the patient was walking with great difficulty across the dayroom. The staff nurse ran to him, performed a flying drop kick, and the patient fell crying onto the floor. Staff cheered and the patient remained on the floor for several minutes until one of the more civilised nurses helped him up.

Another time, I had to bath a patient, a young man who spent his day in a wheelchair. I had been told he was mute and in my four months on that ward, I had never seen him talking. As I bathed patients, I spoke to them. Even if they couldn't reply, it seemed the only thing to do, and it helped my sanity. On this particular day, I said something to him and ended my sentence with the words, 'didn't you, John?'. I was utterly shocked when he replied, 'yes!'

Another patient, a young man who was physically fit and active used to wander onto the dormitory and chew the furniture. Incidentally, and lest we forget, he was one of the several on that and other wards who was freely acknowledged onto be a victim of the whooping cough vaccine. I was always saddened when elderly parents would arrive during weekend visiting hours. Having destroyed several items of furniture, the staff requested that the patient have his teeth removed. The psychologist, whose cooperation was required for this to be approved naturally refused to condone this, but in all the time I worked there, he was never called in to recommend programs that might help patients.

I learned an awful lot in that job, but was happy to leave and return to college. The expectations of those patients were extremely low. Not all staff were brutes; some were lovely and caring people, but even the caring staff, with so little time for anything other than the basic care were unable to supply the real interaction that might have helped the patients grow in some way.

Things move on. The hospital I worked in is long closed and those patients who survive have moved into the community. But over the same time, Britain has continued its not so genteel decline and in the successive years, the sort of in service training that, it might be hoped, would help improve those patients' lot has fallen as a priority.

I know there are communities that care for individuals that have high care needs. In some, individuals who would have been institutionalised are treated as the individuals they still are. But such places do what they do at very high cost- something that neither public nor private sector have. What right have we have to wring our hands or to expect that such things should remain in a Dickensian past?

Barrie J's picture

Do venture capitalists have care homes in their portfolios for profit or for philanthropic reasons.
Do venture capitalists employ unqualified low paid staff, often with a very poor command of the English language because they want to give them a chance or working in a caring environment where they may create a career for themselves or because they are cheap and flexible.
Examples of greedy and self serving capitalism are many and whilst there are high profile examples of altruism by the filthy rich they are few by comparison.
Please read Robert Tressell's Ragged Trousered Philanthropists for history soon to be repeating itself.

city hobgoblin's picture

The connection between the profit motive and the abuse is surely very clear.

Employing anyone you can get at the lowest possible rate you can get away with and having half hearted management structures doesn't cause abuse in itself, but surely makes it more likely.

On the other hand, paying a decent wage, taking time and care with recruitment and supporting staff properly costs money and reduces profits. Guess why it doesn't happen?

Humanrightsforall's picture

In a way I believe that it was the greediness of the private sector to partly also cause the abuse, as, if you don't invest in staff i.e. good salary, training, motivation, supervision etc. then you can get this. The other distressing fact is that even the registered nurses in charge of the unit did not do anything. Now, registered nurses are bound also to the NMC code of practice, so you would have expected better. Nevertheless, the nurse who did alert the manager, then the CQC before the PANORAMA intervention, got not Let's imagine a similar scenario, but when it is the residents who 'abuse' the carers (not really abuse, as they do have a condition and need help)! Well, usually these residents who actually need a lot of professional help based on empathy, warmth, love and real care, usually get sectioned under the MHA, get totally isolated from their families (because then it becomes a much larger abuse, lots of secrets etc) get usually moved far from their families, locked away and the keys are usually thrown away. Usually the risk assessment reads: "risk to themselves and others, particularly vulnerable people". Now, this is happening in a country supposed to be caring, democratic and civilised. On the other hand, the carers who willingly abused those in their care, got, at most, two years jail. Where does the fairness of the law stand? Aren't these 'carers' also at risk to others, particularly the vulnerable?
There is ample legislation and guidelines to ensure that care is delivered for people with a learning disability or mental health, in a supportive, therapeutic and empowering way. This way of working needs time and skilled staff as main resources. In most places staff are kept at a minimum and often units are short of staff. Clinical supervision doesn't always do what it is designed to do, so staff who really care get burnout. In the meantime, money is spent on other things, including high wages for managers, directors etc. Who monitors this? When CQC comes to visit, it is usually all white-washed, as it is with OFSTED. These Quangos need to get into what really happens on a day-to-day basis but then, whose interest is that these vulnerable people are really provided with the care they need? Why are their families isolated from them? Why is there so much secrecy about care delivered for people detained under the MHA? Surely if someone is admitted in an NHS hospital for a cardiac intervention, it is expected that the family is fully involved and informed in a transparent way ... well, that is, unless the patient is very old or disabled. Then, you see, the integrity of clinicians in relation to honesty, remains questionable. What level of morality can people retain if the big churning machine is pressing them to get on and just forget about the fact that the person they are actually caring for is another human being? ... Sometimes I wonder if in 2,000 AC, time of Socrates for instance, vulnerable people were treated in the same way. One thing is sure, they had more respect for the elderly, much more, as getting old meant attaining a higher level of virtue, knowledge and wisdom ... oh, I forgot ... Computer says "NO".

Posh Tosh's picture

When I ran a care home I filled the staff vacancies with unqualified people, shipped in workers for my own profit and did not care about the patients, and approved if the the patients starved slowly, as long as it helped my profit margin, as are a multimillionaire whom needs incentives to remain fleecing Britain before I go back home to my country, and the frustrated staff I employed well they done alright and many would be on par with the Jimmy SoVile health care whilst living and dead policy and often took out the fact I kept them on low wages by abusing the patients, as it was the patients faults for being there, and was keeping the staff off the dole and out of psychiatric units for abuse of the vulnerable.

I soon look forward to the Cameron-Clegg initiative where they seek to help the elderly by freezing them to death - those that are younger will be in the new form of workhouse, called a death camp. I will do my best to buy dark satanic factories and then train the workforce to sleep five hours a day, have one meal and work seven days a week and will let them sleep in a room as have not an home to go to at the end of shift, those that cannot work any longer then can go in the furnace and keep the cost of importing fuel down for me.

Idi Amin : The Bunker Berlin.

Worldismad's picture

It is a very special sort of person who is able to care for the elderly who can be very difficult. You have to have the patience of a saint and a caring personality. It is so wrong that this government would like to use Workfare in care homes as this would lead to even more abuse. The private sector's greed is to blame as their training is often sketchy or non existent and they pay abysmal wages.

Latest tweets