The lack of transparency and accountability associated with large private companies is problematic when it applies to essential products and services, as we have seen with the energy companies and banks. But when it begins to affect the lives of adults and children to whom the state owes a duty of care, but whose lives are now a source of profit for a private provider, it is truly alarming.
The lack of transparency and accountability associated with large private companies is problematic when it applies to essential products and services, as we have seen with the energy companies and banks. But when it begins to affect the lives of adults and children to whom the state owes a duty of care, but whose lives are now a source of profit for a private provider, it is truly alarming.
The growing involvement of companies like Virgin and Serco in the NHS is well known, but the public may be largely unaware of how even the most sensitive areas of public service are now being outsourced to multinational corporations. If you click here you will see the website for G4S Children’s Services. They run three secure training units, and eight children’s homes for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Perhaps it is unreasonable, but just the thought of G4S Children’s Services makes my heart sink. The idea that a company which was incapable of organising security for the Olympics is now responsible for the care of very vulnerable children just seems wrong. Research does not prove reassuring, when you find that the man responsible for health and safety at such children’s homes was previously involved in an incident which ended in the death of a 15 year old boy.
Traditionally, if you had a problem with a public service you could ask your MP to help. Ultimately they might raise the problem with a Minister. The Minister could exercise authority over their department, and if necessary, call people to account.
When services are privatised however, a Minister may find themselves in the almost powerless position of a dissatisfied customer being given the run around by Customer Services. Once a huge contract is signed, the prospect of trying to extricate the government from it, and the ensuing upheaval, may be almost unthinkable, no matter how bad the service. We have seen this with the Atos contract for Work Capability Assessments. Despite being shown to be providing very poor value for money and an appalling service, there appears to have been no redress for the public.
The Freedom of Information Act was introduced to make public bodies more accountable, but private contractors are exempt. As the
‘Section 43 of the Act sets out an exemption from the right to know if: the information requested is a trade secret, or release of the information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.’
So any company called upon to release information that could prove embarrassing, or damaging to its brand, will inevitably use this to avoid transparency. G4S has already been shown to use subterfuge when applying for planning permission for its children’s homes, and justified this by citing ‘commercial considerations which mean we would prefer our competitors are not informed of our plans.”
As more and more vital and sensitive public services are outsourced to private contractors, and the government relegates itself to the role of customer, who will protect the interests of vulnerable people at the mercy of unaccountable corporations? David Cameron advises energy customers who feel they’re being ripped off to switch. For a traumatised teenager who encounters problems in a childrens’ home, it’s not that simple.
———-
© Bernadette Meaden has written about political, religious and social issues for some years, and is strongly influenced by Christian Socialism, liberation theology and the Catholic Worker movement. She is an Ekklesia associate and regular contributor. You can follow her on Twitter: @BernaMeaden