Rumours emanating from City Chambers suggest that the Liberal-Democrat–SNP Coalition may decide how to progress its Alternative Business Models programme (ABM) as early as 27 October.
In its first phase, ABM involves reassessment of roles and methods in the following public-sector areas:
- Corporate and Transactional Services (revenues and benefits, procure to pay, HR/payroll, customer contact);
- Environmental Services (refuse collection and recycling, street cleansing, grounds maintenance, environmental services' fleet)
- Integrated Facilities Management (operational property, catering, cleaning).
As recently as August, Council officials claimed to be 'exploring whether there might be better, more cost effective ways of delivering quality services' here (our italics), and invited consultation. However, the determined tone suggested conclusions had already been drawn: 'No matter which solutions are progressed, services and how they are delivered will change'.
Key to ABM is an openness to bringing in the private sector. Its supporters claim it could attract investment, shake up inefficient management, work practices and employment conditions, providing better services at less cost. They say cash-strapped public authorities have a clear responsibility to provide best value for money, especially when public budgets are so overstretched.
Opponents call this 'backdoor privatisation'. They argue that experience of ABM in England shows hidden costs grow rapidly, that extra public money is needed to supervise the private sector, and that in any case public authorities are very bad at drawing up fair, watertight contracts when faced by more experienced, aggressive lawyers representing the commercial interests of for-profit organisations. (Edinburgh's problems with educational public–private partnerships as well as tram arrangements spring to mind.)
Opponents also point to likely wage reductions and redundancies as private firms 'rationalise' their operations nationally rather than locally. They claim that under ABM the private sector is less accountable and responsive than the public sector, and that it always seeks to maximise profit over service.
At present, there is no publicly available document detailing any proposed changes in Edinburgh. Political adversaries are fighting in the dark over a supposed presence in the room which may turn out to be an elephant or something else entirely.
Spurtle will therefore watch and wait for now. However, in future we would certainly question the fairness of any widespread, significant changes made without an explicit electoral mandate and sufficient public scrutiny.
Spurtle reader and 'opinonated wee nyaff' Alyson Macdonald guest-blogged on this subject recently for the Better Nation website. It's a well-written piece of polemic, but is doubly interesting for the Comments trail at the end in which articulate counter-arguments and qualifications also appear. You can read it here. See also Question 2 in Spurtle's coverage of the City Centre by-election hustings this summer (Breaking news, 10.8.11).
***********
Update (12.10.11)
Alyson Macdonald writes: Thanks for putting information about this on your website. Unfortunately the full details are unlikely to be made public until 20th October, just one week before the vote – which is one of the issues that the anti-ABM campaign objects to. However, it has now been confirmed that Council officials will be taking part in a public debate on the matter. The debate is scheduled for Monday 24 October at 7pm in Edinburgh University's Appleton Tower, which is in Crichton Street (next to where the Crichton Street car park used to be).