Category Archives: mutualisation

Moving the mutuals discussion forward beyond the Open Public Services White Paper

By David Bicknell

Some strong words are being expressed about the ongoing development of mutuals and co-operatives by two commentators, Ed Mayo of Co-operatives UK and Craig Dearden-Philips.

Mayo’s article highlights the Foster Care Co-operative, an independent and ethical ‘not-for-private-profit’ fostering agency, based in Malvern, Worcestershire, with three regional offices, Greenwich Leisure Limited is one of London’s most successful mutual enterprises, operating more than 90 public leisure centres in the South East and West Whitlawburn Housing Co-operative is a fully mutual housing co-operative in the south east area of Glasgow which provides, manages and maintains quality affordable housing as examples of what people, working together can achieve.

But he warned, there will be challenges for public sector workers setting up new co-operatives.  “We need to ensure that we can provide real help which will guarantee that they are supported through this process, if indeed that’s what they want to do. Any new co-operatives formed need to enshrine the co-operative values and mustn’t be allowed to be ‘fake mutuals’.”

“Co-operatives can only succeed – and in the public sector success is essential – if they are independent enterprises, controlled by their members – staff and users. ”

In his article, Dearden-Philips says this, “What it (the Open Public Services White Paper) does for spin-outs can be more clearly expressed by stating what it dodges. In short, the three ‘P’s. Procurement, Pensions and People. It doesn’t tell public bodies that they can give spin-outs contracts and enjoy support from the centre in doing this. It doesn’t clear the mud about pension-rights for staff joining a spin-out or going back into the public sector afterwards. It doesn’t allow give clear rights to people who want to do this the entitlement to do it, assuming the business-case is there. Compared to the Academies Bill, which made all of the above very clear – with mass spinning out as a result – this White Paper was lightweight.

“All is not gloom. The Government’s own Mutual Support Programme opens in the Autumn and there are signs that the Department of Health’s successful Social Enterprise Investment Fund (SEIF) will also reopen for business soon. Conferences are aplenty, and some have more than just consultants in attendance, notably the Employee Ownership Association’s excellent event this month.

“Further to this, there are also signs that local authorities in particular are rising from the canvas following the knockout blow from this current year’s financial settlement. While a punishing in-year programme has needed to be put in place, absorbing all energy to date, councils are now eyeing the horizon and looking more strategically at the question of how they deal with greater demand and fewer resources long-term.

“The answer many are coming up with is that you can only really deliver more and better public services through a more fulsome engagement with citizens and communities. The public service cake used to be just made of one ingredient: public money. In future, the cake will be more complex, combining public funds, private funds, citizen effort and community endevour. The tailored, equitable services we all want will only come with all of these extra element ‘baked-in’.

“The questions most councils up and down are now grappling with is how to do this. Legacy services are expensive and ineffective but often politically incendiary because of what they represent. Public libraries are an example. The potential for libraries as community-hubs is well-documented but you need to convince people of the need for a new type of settlement for these kinds of institutions to work properly. This includes volunteers on top of paid staff, fundraising on top of public funding, paid for services on top of free ones, a business outlook on top of a social one.

“Where I am driving here is that I think the solution to the big question councils are grappling with lies in social enterprise. This defines social enterprise not in the frame of the public-private continuum, but as an entirely new approach to producing the public goods that most of us wish to see in our communities. For this reason, we should see their development as outside the usual EU procurement mindset that preoccupies most commissioners of services. Local authorities should be freed up from worrying about that and worry instead about how they are going to best combine their own resources with those of communities and citizens. ”

Meanwhile, there are more details here about a potential new source of funding for social enterprise

Mutualisation Briefing

Mutuals: Public sector ethos + drive + vision – excess process = innovation

By David Bicknell

Moving services from direct control to employee-led mutuals is a way for staff to create their own vision for what they want to achieve for the public, free from the constraints of tortuous processes and long-winded decision-making that strangle good ideas. Procurement rules, for example, are often condemned as the greatest block on innovation, as this Guardian article discusses.

It also covers what makes a public sector ethos and discusses the importance of not only changing structure through mutuals, but changing culture as well.

Lewisham discussions highlight town hall debates over possible future role of mutuals

By David Bicknell

Evidence is emerging of ongoing talks taking place  within councils over the possible mutualisation of services.

This blog post from Liberal Democrat councillor Alex Feakes references work on mutualism that Lewisham Council has done in South London. This debate, which has been covered on the Sydenham Town Forum and in the South London Press, is a useful snapshot of  policy discussions over mutuals that could follow up and down the country.

Mutuals: “Explore your potential” – says law firm Capsticks

By David Bicknell

Chris Brophy from law firm Capsticks has put together some useful thoughts on the Open Public Services White Paper

His conclusions make interesting reading. He says:

“It might be said that there are a lot of aspirational aspects to the White Paper but the crucial point for those that are open to inspiration, to changing their own public organisation or to developing a business from the public body, is that the mutual or social enterprise pathway is still being encouraged and people should really be reaching for the stars on it. The time is right to leave behind old, comfortable ways because they are simply not going to survive in the new financial era – even if you want them to. It is time to explore the potential in your own colleagues and the desire at Board level of your own organisation to fundamentally change the way in which you are operating. It is not quite now or never but the early bird catches the worm. And the worm is important for sustaining you through the winter. It is time to put into practice all you have learned about how to improve services from an intimate knowledge of the difficulties of doing it within the public sector. Applying that knowledge to latent, innovatory tendencies and grabbing on to all the help and support you can from around you might just well lead you to another place. If things get tough and people are having a go at you but you are enjoying doing things that you want to what you do, keep doing them; it is the only way to get where you want to be.

A listening period will now follow the publication of the White Paper until September, when a programme of work will be set out, followed by the government’s establishment of the priorities of the departments in November. Then, the proposals for legislation. Plenty of opportunity to gear up in the meantime.”

There are some further thoughts here too

Cameron needs to ride out Murdoch affair

Comment

By David Bicknell and Tony Collins

It would be a pity if David Cameron were forced to stand down over the phone hacking affair. Cameron is the force behind Francis Maude’s reform plans for central government, in particular the plans for finding and implementing innovative ways of cutting costs, mutualisation, simplifying and standardising ways of working and breaking the stranglehold  of the few big IT suppliers to government. Cameron and Maude are trying genuinely to find ways of giving creative SMEs more government work.

Were Cameron to go, Maude would probably be much more isolated. As it is permanent secretaries would be more than happy to see Maude’s reforms melting away, though they would continue to express support for radical change. As the Cabinet Secretary Sir Arnold says in the first episode of “Yes Minister” on Open Government:  “The less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it.”

The signs we have seen are that Maude and his team are full of good ideas that some senior civil servants in departments would rather talk about than implement. We’ll shortly be publishing a piece on how officials at the Department for Work and Pensions still default to secrecy despite Maude’s attempts to change the mindset of the civil service.

Cameron will make some mistakes. Nobody is perfect. And prime ministers are always at the mercy of a previous Conservative prime minister, Harold Macmillan’s warning of “events, dear boy”.

Even Churchill made mistakes such as the Dardanelles landings. The media loves scalps and Cameron’s opponents will make the most of Murdoch’s woes. We hope for the sake of the reforms of central government – and the huge savings to be made – that Cameron stays.

David Cameron is an asset. His would be a resignation too far.

Mutuals: ‘Managers are the biggest barrier to employee ownership’

By David Bicknell

In the aftermath of the Open Public Services White Paper, Stephen Kelly, who is in charge of the Coalition’s plan to mutualise the public sector, has been interviewed in the Daily Telegraph here.

Meanwhile, in this clip from a Policy Exchange debate on mutuals, Julian Legrand has been quoted as saying managers are the biggest barrier to employee ownership

Mutuals: Government must deliver on radical public services agenda, says Institute for Government

By David Bicknell

Responding to the Government’s Open Public Services White Paper launched by David Cameron this week, the Institute for Government says the agenda is a radical one, but failure to deliver will come at a cost.

Commenting on the launch, the Institute’s Programme Director, Tom Gash said:

“There’s not much that is new in this white paper but it is still a radical agenda for change. Other governments have tried and failed to remodel public services. The difference this time is that the stakes are higher. With massive cuts to public spending, if these measures don’t work, the state will not be in a position to shore up services.

“A white paper by itself doesn’t change anything. To make this vision a reality, a lot of work lies ahead. Failure to take these next steps in any of the policy areas covered by the paper will lead to the risk of future u-turns, uncertainty and failure”.

The Institute argues that several key issues need to be addressed going forward. These include:

  • Mechanisms for accountability in service delivery must be thought through. Voting in a local election is very different from choosing your GP but in future there are likely to be different combinations of accountability mechanisms for different services.
  • Whilst removing top-down targets  and giving greater autonomy to frontline professionals, government must still be clear on the lowest level of service permissible before this autonomy is withdrawn or restricted.
  • Transparency – data will need to be accurate, timely and accessible if people are going to be able to use it to exercise their choices.
  • Ministers will have to be willing to relinquish power. They’ll still be held responsible for local decisions even though they no longer have control over them.
  • As public services are opened up to new providers, ministers must be absolutely clear about who is responsible for what.
  • Mutuals will need to have the scope to blend state and private investment and not be soley dependent on a single source of funding.
  • Commissioning for outcomes must focus on those outcomes that are measurable. But measuring outcomes is often harder than measuring outputs. For example, it is easy to measure whether a hip operation took place. It is less easy to measure whether or not the operation has improved the patient’s quality of life.

The Institute argues that policies in the white paper are at different stages of their development.  Ministers, central and local government and practitioners will all have work to do if they are to ensure that they are implemented in a way that genuinely improves public services and the lives of citizens. Drawing on its publication Making Policy Better, the Institute recommends that departments will need to:

  • Carry out a “reality check” on policies, involving implementers and/or users of services in testing or piloting them.
  • Consult those affected by changes and address the issues that arise as a result of these consultations.
  • Ensure that policies have been properly costed and that they are resilient to external risks.
  • Make sure the role of central government is properly thought through and that it is clear who is accountable for delivering particular services and the criteria on which they will be judged to have succeeded or failed.
  • Have plans in place for collecting feedback on how policies are being delivered in practice and the mechanisms are in place to act on this feedback.
  • Make sure that policies are implemented in a way that allows government to assess whether they have worked or not and how they can be adapted and strengthened.

 Gash added:

“In order to avoid repeating the experience of the beleaguered NHS reforms, the coalition will need to invest a good deal of time and resources in delivering its radical programme for reforming public services. To publish a white paper and then walk away will not be enough but today’s announcement, with its emphasis on consultation and analysis seems to show that government has learnt from its mistakes and is ready to take the time to deliver something which could change forever the way citizens choose and receive their services”.

Reaction to white paper publication concerns asset locks, finance, resourcing and support for mutuals

Much of the immediate reaction to the Government’s publication of its Open Public Services White Paper concerns issues surrounding assets, definitions of mutuals and most importantly, support for them, and financing.

Dom Potter from the Transition Institute says, “Noticeable by it’s absence is any provision in the paper to establish a mechanism for ensuring that publicly-owned assets such as council buildings or parks will remain in some form of public, common or shared ownership by communities.

“This will be taken by some as evidence of wholesale privatisation looming around the corner. But in my view the political discourse that will swirl around the issue of asset locks shouldn’t obscure the need to utilise these assets for the wider, long-term public good.

“There is also an issue that isn’t addressed in the paper around how public assets could potentially be used to leverage external investment into public services.

“As long as the assets are secured for public/shared ownership, I would be interested to see what mechanisms might emerge from the Big Society Bank and out of central and local government to enable assets to be sweated in order to raise the initial cash to get emerging mutuals up and running with a sustainable business model.

On mutuals definitions, he says:

“Thankfully for those of us who are keen that each individual spin-out is set up with the legal and governance structures appropriate to it’s unique local context, the one-member-one-vote implication of calling them mutuals is not quite as literal is it could have been.

“There is a clear indication that a variety of ownership models – ‘wholly employee-led, multi-stakeholder and mutual joint venture models’ – are mentioned, although further clarification is needed as to exactly what is meant by these terms.

On finance and support:

“There is mention of an ‘Enterprise Incubator Unit’ set up within the Cabinet Office to ‘provide advice, challenge and resources for public service providers from central government departments and their agencies who want to move from the public sector to the independent sector’. This sounds interesting, but I am wary of the idea of government advising itself on how to set up independently of itself. In my view, the Unit at least needs to be staffed by individuals who have experience of the transition to independent delivery or by individuals with experience of running independent organisations (or, ideally, both) in order to have the desired impact.”

“The Mutual Support Programme is due to come on stream in autumn 2011 according to the White Paper.  This means that there will be support available for entrepreneurial public sector staff more quickly than had been anticipated, given how quiet the Cabinet Office had become around getting the MSP up and running since it was first mentioned last year.”

“Recognised within the paper is the need to look for innovative ways of routing external finance into public services. The Big Society Bank will be a key part of this, and this may be a fruitful way of expanding, for example, the pool of social impact bonds beyond the one pilot in Peterborough prison.

CBI Director General John Cridland says:

“The Work Programme shows how companies of all sizes are successfully working in partnership with social enterprises, community groups and charities. While it is right to recognise the benefits mutuals and smaller providers can offer, the principle of any willing provider also means that larger firms should be able to bring their expertise to bear, and when they achieve better outcomes they should be able to make a reasonable profit. We think the Government could have made this much clearer in the White Paper.”

However, Peter Holbrook, Chief Executive of the Social Enterprise Coalition, takes a different view:

“We are concerned that the proposed reforms will create an unequal playing field in which social enterprises are unable to compete with large private sector providers for public sector contracts.  Social enterprises often do not have the capital or scale required to compete with big private businesses in open markets.

“These reforms must protect our public services, not put them at risk.  Without the necessary safeguards, the consequence of these proposals will be that private providers will dominate public sector markets.  Taxpayers’ money will flow into profit seeking organisations that exist only to satisfy the needs of their shareholders.  Public services must operate for the communities and people they serve, nobody else.

“The Government’s plans to extend Payment by results across a number of other public services will put private sector organisations at an automatic advantage.  The reality is that without decisive action to use public spending to improve social outcomes, the big organisations will simply use their stronger balance sheets and ability to attract private investment to win contracts.

“We only have to look to the Department for Work and Pensions Work Programme to see that when markets open up, large private sector providers move in and squeeze out smaller organisations.  A very small proportion of the contracts went to social enterprises, despite it being hailed by Government as a boost for the Big Society.”

Ed Mayo, Secretary General of Co-operatives UK, says:

“The government’s public services reform white paper presents an important opportunity for co-operatives and mutuals to bid for and deliver public services. As trusted organisations that are able to unleash the talents and energies of their employees and users, co-operatives can provide good quality public services.

“Longstanding examples of thriving and successful co-operatives running services like foster care, leisure centres and affordable housing and out of hours GP services show that the co-operative model works extraordinarily well.

“As the trade association for co-operatives we want to see co-operatives thrive in all areas of the economy, including delivering public services. Like many, however, we are wary of some elements of the government’s approach to opening up public services to outside providers.

“First, there are serious issues facing public sector employees and users looking into the co-operative option – from uncertainty about jobs and pensions to the challenge of public sector workers setting up new businesses – that need to be addressed if public sector mutuals are to succeed.

“Second, in the current context, it won’t help staff or users if all the government does is to open the door to privatisation with fake mutuals that fail basic quality tests of member ownership and democracy.

“Third, there is a gap between national policy and local practice, with a lack of understanding of the benefits of co-operatives delivering public services amongst local authority councillors and officers.

“Fourth, there is an urgent need for high quality advice and support with sufficient resource to make sure that this is in place for all who need it.”

Mutuals: white paper offers public services choice as Cameron tells Civil Service to take more risks

It was unfortunate that yesterday’s press conference to launch the Open Public Services White Paper by David Cameron was hijacked by journalists quizzing him on the ongoing News International story.

The event, organised by Reform in Canary Wharf, also featured speakers from big business i.e. the CBI, the consumer organisation Which, and the voluntary sector – “a Coalition in support of the White Paper,” suggested Cameron.

Detailing the public services landscape, Cameron scarcely mentioned mutuals by name, though they do feature significantly in the White Paper itself.

Modernisation of public services, he said, will give people choice and control over the services they use, and end the ‘get what you’re given’ culture.

People will be given more choice to shape the public services they use, putting control in the hands of individuals and neighbourhoods so everyone can benefit from the best public services available.

“I know what our public services can do and how they are the backbone of this country. But I know too that the way they have been run for decades – old-fashioned, top-down, take-what-you’re-given – is just not working for a lot of people.“Ours is a vision of open public services – there will be more freedom, more choice and more local control. Wherever possible we are increasing choice by giving people direct control over the services they use,” said Cameron, who detailed five core principles for modernising public services: choice, decentralisation, diversity, fairness and accountability.

He also made some key points about change and also about risk-taking for those now in the public sector:

“This is the case for change. If we want to compete in the world; if we want to get value for money; and above all if we want the decent, reliable public services that make life better for people, there will be no progress if we stick with the status quo.  What does change look like? It’s about ending the top-down, big government way of running public services,  and bringing in a Big Society approach, releasing the grip of state control and putting power into people’s hands. The old dogma that says ‘Whitehall knows best’ – that is going.”

“We really need to ensure that civil servants and arms length bodies see that there is a clear set of principles to apply: about choice, about diversity, about payment by results, about the role of private and voluntary sectors.

“The biggest challenge for the Civil Service is to try and adapt to this new culture and also a very difficult thing to do, and an easy thing to say, is that actually civil servants will have to take some risks. We all know that in business it is very easy to award the contract to Price Waterhouse. They’ve done it before, they’re an enormous organisation, they won’t fail. I think there’s a similar tendency within the Civil Service. It’s safe to keep it in house and deal with one of the big providers.

“If we really want to see diversity, choice and competition, we have to take some risks and recognise that sometimes there will be a new dynamic social enterprise that has a great way of tackling poverty or drug abuse or helping prisoners go straight, and we do need to take some risks with those organisations and understand that rather like in business, when you have a failure, that that doesn’t mean that the Civil Service has done a disastrous job.

“In business, we try new things in order to do better, and when they don’t work, we sit back and think, ‘How do we do that better next time?’ We do need a sense of creativity and enterprise in our Civil Service which is clearly there….a change of culture, perhaps a different attitude towards innovation and risk and a sense that that will be a good way of driving performance.”

************

This what the White Paper says about public service mutuals:

6.14 We are doing much more than just sweeping away regulations. We are giving public sector staff new rights to form new mutuals and bid to take over the services they deliver, empowering millions of public sector staff to become their own bosses. This will free up the often untapped entrepreneurial and innovative drive of public sector professionals.

6.15 Ownership and control, through mutualisation, empower employees to innovate and redesign services around service users and communities, driving up quality. We will not dictate the precise form of these mutuals; rather, this should be driven by what is best for the users of services and by employees as co-owners of the business. Options include wholly employee-led, multi-stakeholder and mutual joint venture models.

6.16 The Government will take steps to identify and overcome the barriers placed in the way of public sector workers who want to exercise these rights.

6.17 Public sector employee ownership: the key policies we are already implementing include:

  • Right to Provide – we are giving public sector workers who want to form mutuals or co-operatives to deliver public services a Right to Provide. This will enable public sector workers to form independent, or joint venture based, mutual and co-operative social enterprises. Progress is already being made with a new Right to Provide for NHS staff and opportunities for local authorities to invoke the Right to Challenge;
  • mutual pathfinders – the first wave of employee-led mutual pathfinders was launched in August 2010 with a second wave announced in February 2011. These pathfinders are being mentored by expert organisations as well as leading figures in social enterprise and public service to support their growth and share best practice; the pathfinders will provide critical learning as more employees look to exercise these rights;
  • Mutuals Task Force – Professor Julian Le Grand, one of theUK’s leading thinkers on public service reform, has been appointed to lead a Task Force to push employee ownership across the public sector;
  • Mutuals Support Programme – we will invest at least £10 million in the Mutuals Support Programme, to support some of the most promising and innovative mutuals so that they reach the point of investment readiness. This support will be available from autumn 2011;
  • Enterprise Incubator Unit – this has been set up within the Cabinet Office to provide advice, challenge and resources for public service providers from central government departments and their agencies who want to move from the public sector to the independent sector. The unit will help management teams to restructure themselves and their teams into independent businesses, which may include partners providing finance or expertise, for example through a joint venture;
  • Post Office mutualisation – In May, Co-operativesUK published a report commissioned by the Government on options to transfer Post Office Ltd from government ownership to a mutual run for the public benefit. The Government will carefully consider this report before launching a public consultation later this year; and
  • My Civil Service Pension (MyCSP) – plans have been announced for MyCSP to become the first mutual enterprise to spin out of a central government service. MyCSP administers Civil Service pension schemes for 1.5 million public sector workers. MyCSP’s plans to mutualise, which have the full backing of the Government, will give employees a stake in the new business, alongside government and a private sector partner. The innovative ownership model will be matched by a participative management approach: there has already been a strong turnout in elections for the Employee Partnership Council, through which employees will have a meaningful say in the running of the business.
Enabling new provision

7.7  Creating open public services will require new types of investment in public services: investment of money, inspiration and entrepreneurial effort. The Government will promote the opportunities being created by open public services, tailored to individual sectors. This promotion will aim to support:

  • accessing new forms of external finance – there is an exciting set of opportunities to bring new forms of finance into public services. This includes social investment (e.g. social impact bonds); payment for results on capital improvements (e.g. energy efficiency) and the financing of modernisation programmes (e.g. joint ventures to introduce new technology). Work is under way to develop effective measures of the social impact of investment and to launch the Big Society Bank, which will catalyse the growth of a sustainable social investment market;
  • empowering public sector staff to take control of their own services in new enterprises like mutuals – the creation of mutuals is a critical step in achieving more diversity in public services. However, we recognise that this is a big step to take for both staff and the public body that employs them. We will set out a full range of support available to those who are considering setting up a mutual, in the same way that we seek to stimulate both voluntary and private sector development. This will include a £10 million Mutuals Support Programme to provide support to fledgling mutuals that are being set up to deliver public services by employees leaving the public sector; and
  • actively encouraging new providers, of all sizes and from all sectors, to deliver public services– when we say we want diversity in public services, that is exactly what we mean. We will take active steps to avoid simply switching from one type of monopoly to another. We will launch a positive action programme to improve the awareness of public service opportunities to new providers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of our policy changes have already opened up attractive new opportunities, for example in the Work Programme and through personal budgets in social care. In addition, we will take positive action on procurement and through regulators to ensure that other opportunities (e.g. in central government procurement) are opened up to new types of provider, be they from the public, private or voluntary sector.

If you want more details, you can access the White Paper here – and the Government has unveiled an Open Public Services website

Mutuals to be at heart of Open Public Services White Paper to be launched today

By David Bicknell

The Government is expected to launch its Open Public Services White Paper in London today, giving details of how so-called ‘John Lewis-style mutuals’, will take over the running of much of the public sector.

The shake-up of the state will hand “choice and control” to communities across the country,  opening large parts of the public sector to the “best possible provider.”

The Open Public Service White Paper  is being mooted as the sector’s biggest overhaul for 50 years, with private firms, voluntary groups and charities cleared to take over the running of  schools, healthcare and council services.

The emphasis is expected to be put on “mutuals”, where staff control the planning and spending decisions for local services. Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude has already  suggested that mutuals could have a  “transformational”  impact on service quality and morale. By 2015, it is estimated,  one in six public sector employees will be working in mutuals.

Already a ‘Mutuals Taskforce’ is in place, supported by a pilot ‘Pathfinder’ programme  to help point the way for would-be mutuals to learn from.

Maude has already pointed to the example of an intermediate care unit in Swindon which was  launched as a pilot last summer, bringing together around 900 nurses, physiotherapists, doctors and other staff previously employed by the primary care trust and local council.

“It’s a mutual where there’s no financial incentive. They will own it, but with no profit share or anything, no financial upside, they will have to take out 30 per cent of their cost over the next four years and they are really excited about it,” Maude told The Independent on Sunday.

If you’re considering setting up a mutual, what are your concerns? What questions would you like the Government to answer about mutuals?