Public Bad : Private Good?

It's unfortunate, but probably inevitable, that the debate about privatising further areas of the public sector generally and probation in particular, will be distilled essentially to arguing the toss over a shorthand mantra that says 'public bad : private good.' Some comments on here have already started to be expressed in this vein - to essentially polarise what is in reality quite a complex issue. The truth is that in a mixed economy and democratic state, we need both in order to function properly. There are some things that can only be undertaken or done better by the state and others that can be done better by private enterprise. It's a question of degree, balance and philosophy. Not political dogma.

Actually it can also be about compromise and coming to a mutually agreed accommodation, as in the the case of doctors in the NHS. When plans for a National Health Service were being thrashed out by a Labour government after the Second World War, a compromise had to be reached with a very suspicious British Medical Association. As a result to this day, most GP's are in fact part of businesses called 'practices' and are only contractors to the NHS. After the passage of so much time, I'm not at all sure how much this is widely understood by the general public, but it's a model that seems to have served us well. Of course the same is true of dentists, and hospital consultants only continue with 'private' patients because of the historic settlement with the Labour government that was famously designed to 'stuff their mouths with gold.'  

In deciding to enter the world of probation, I made a conscious decision to become a public servant and follow a vocation. At no time did it ever occur to me that probation, or prisons come to think of it, might be areas of human endeavour that would lend themselves appropriately to being run by private enterprise and in order to turn a profit. Surely they are public services, delivered for the benefit of all citizens and that only have to contend with issues such as quality, fairness and integrity, not profit for shareholders? Our 'shareholders' are all of us and we are accountable by democratic processes.

However, we have all had to accept the notion of privately-run prisons. I've never been happy with the concept of the state incarcerating people by operation of the profit motive and I'm still not. But upon reflection many would argue, including the prisoners themselves, that limited privatisation has brought about improvement in conditions. There remains a debate to be had as to whether they have delivered real cost-savings and some would say that up to now the type of establishment has not posed undue problems. Pragmatically though, for me it's now a question of degree and appropriate balance. I suppose it could be said, reflecting the balance in provision of private education.

It's clear that the political consensus that pretty much held sway concerning the boundaries between the public and private sector has shifted considerably over recent years. Both Labour and Conservative governments have each responded to powerful lobbying by the likes of the CBI and tabloid press in the hope of gaining political favour. Complex issues and the subtleties of debate have regularly been lost in the headlong urge to 'spin' and create political soundbites on a whole range of issues. 

The Probation Service has a significant history of working in partnership with other agencies, but now finds itself having to respond to the headlong ideological drive for privatisation. The danger is that we are considerably hampered in being able to adequately respond because we have lost our independent voice. NOMS clearly do not understand us because of domination by the Prison Service. We give every impression of being like the proverbial rabbit caught in the car head lights. We desperately need a voice and quickly. In the mean time, it is to be hoped that the Probation Association's plea for Trusts to become responsible for the commissioning of services will be heeded as a way of trying to retain a coherent Service.    

It was whilst thinking about the predicament Probation finds itself in that I stumbled across an article written by David Scott, the former Chief Officer of London Probation and written specially for the Probation Journal in October 2010. It's well worth reading in full. Remember, he was the Chief who decided to take responsibility and resign in the wake of the infamous Sonnex case. Amongst other things, he highlights the fact that:-

"Arguably no other agency has been as affected as Probation by the political short-termism and opportunism which have prevailed in a period of heightened public anxiety and frustration about law and order failings."  

Given the incredibly cursory way in which Michael Spurr of NOMS chose to inform Probation Chiefs that they were to spend the summer preparing for the privatisation of possibly every area of probation work, it's interesting to see what David Scott goes on to say somewhat presciently less than a year ago:-

"How can Probation continue to exist, let alone flourish, without its own national leadership? Who represents Probation in the corridors of power and argues its corner when crucial decisions about resourcing and public profile are made? Is Probation best placed in the Ministry of Justice when many would argue it belongs more with the Police in the Home Office? What model best enables Chief Officers to deliver high quality local services? Why is probation practice so desk-bound, and why is there no real time inter-agency training simulation to build confidence and share learning across cultures?" 

He ends with what could well be regarded as good a rallying cry as any:-

"Probation staff have a remarkable history of adaptation and courage against the odds. These qualities and a willingness to speak up for the Service will be crucial to its imperilled future."

Before it's too late, I think the government needs to be encouraged to look rather more closely at Mr Spurr and the whole NOMS management structure before they set about engineering our demise. Members of the House of Commons Justice Select Committee particularly, please take note!