News

The private sector cannot be relied upon to provide consistent services, says social work lecturer Peter Scourfield.

Recent moves by the NSPCC to close 18 projects and the Children's Society to axe its services in Wales have been met by disappointment and condemnation. But, perhaps these decisions should prompt some reflection on how much we are coming to rely on the independent sector to provide social care to vulnerable people. Independent agencies are always going to be free to take this kind of action - they are, after all, independent.

Successive governments have produced an effective consensus that the independent sector is self-evidently a "good thing" and should be encouraged to grow. The implication of this view being that there is something inherently wrong with state-provided services. The atrophy of local authorities' role in direct provision, particularly of adult services, has been deliberately encouraged. Local authorities are now buying more home care from the independent sector than they provide themselves - mainly private sector provision.

But, when faced with a lack of profits, private providers desert the market. This leaves local authorities with a statutory duty to provide care but without the direct means to do so. Surely this is absurd. How would we like to be protected by a fire service which, when called upon to put out fires, had no staff or equipment of their own but were obliged to commission services from independent fire fighters? When an independent provider goes bust, sells out, relocates or has a staffing crisis, local authorities must still continue to meet statutory obligations. Non-statutory provision is inherently unstable: a contract to care doesn't carry the same degree of accountability as the duty to care.

The creation of a thriving independent sector was designed to promote competition and diversity. In a traditionally low-paid industry this has meant downward pressure on wages, weakened job security and very little spent on training. Many independent providers struggle to recruit and retain staff, often competing for the same small pool of workers as local authorities. These factors are likely to add nothing to the quality of a service to the client.

At a time when government has pledged to address the postcode lottery, constructing a system of social care around the variability, fragility and instability of many independent agencies is surely a contradiction.

The independent sector has its role to play, but the key to improving public services must be to invest more in local authority provision. This should be the backbone not the rump of social care in Britain.