Carillion and Other Parasites
Lorna Finlayson
Until very recently, most of us hadn’t heard of Carillion. Not having heard of a particular company wouldn’t usually be surprising or unsettling. But this is more like not having heard of the people who have been making alterations to your house, building your neighbour’s and – in an odd display of versatility – delivering lunches to your children. Because it turns out that Carillion is – or was, until its sudden but entirely predictable liquidation on Monday – pretty much everywhere. As a result, several projects, including the building of two hospitals, a high-speed railway and a bypass in Aberdeen, now hang in the balance, along with the jobs of around 20,000 UK workers.
A certain subterfuge was always a built-in feature of the ‘public-private partnerships’ (PPPs) and ‘private finance initiatives’ (PFIs) of which Tony Blair was so enthusiastic a pioneer. In classic Third Way fudgethink, these initiatives were presented not as all-out privatisation but as a ‘best of both worlds’ solution, a series of discreet injections of what a creaking public sector badly needed: the fabled private-sector virtue of ‘efficiency’, and hard cash (which would come out of the public purse sooner or later, but could be kept off the public balance sheet in the meantime). Companies such as Carillion are not like supermarket chains, loudly competing for customers. They snaffle up public-sector contracts on the quiet, and the public hears about it only when things go so badly wrong that the government can no longer mop up the mess.
In Carillion’s case, the government tried to save the struggling firm by awarding £2 billion worth of new contracts to it even as a series of profit warnings were issued. That didn’t work; and now we hear about it. At this point, however, why the government continued to award contracts to a high risk outfit may not be the first question to ask (the answer may or may not have anything to do with the fact that Carillion’s chairman is a prominent adviser to and supporter of the Conservative Party). It may also be beside the point to focus on the various instances of Carillion’s unsavoury corporate behaviour, such as tweaking the rules to protect bosses’ bonuses, or blacklisting employees who raised concerns about safety. In so doing, we fail to question the principle of private-sector ‘delivery’ of public services, despite the abundant and mounting evidence – from the NHS to academy chains – that the relationship of these companies to their host institutions in the public sector is not symbiosis but parasitism, and that this is no accident but part of the essential nature of the profit-making beast.
Comments
One 'benefit' of such privatization in the U.S. to further weaken unions - public agencies had union workforces, while private-public contracts (at least federally) generally required union labor. However, a private corporation making a deal with another private corporation to build, say, a toll expressway (formerly known as a 'free' way), could more easily circumvent the labor requirements.
I'm curious as to whether the same held true for the UK. If so, there is dismal irony in having such a policy pursued by a labor party.
As for 'if public funding had been the only source of revenue', if the state borrows directly and builds things itself rather than through PFI, more resources are available because less interest is paid. The state is a large secure outfit which does not go broke. Consequently its borrowing costs are lower than those of private businesses.
I can't prove this, but suspect that the attractions of PFI/PPP to governments are that they put the responsibility at a second remove from elected officials, who get to join the public in being angry with the PFI/PPP enterprise when things go wrong, that the process enables various costs to be kept off the books and that PFI/PPP sprinkles the whole affair with the magical dust of the always efficient private sector.
Not being privy to the thinking within the Treasury at the time, I'm in no position to say whether traditional public sector borrowing and direct management by either a refurbished LEA system or a hugely expanded DfES could have produced a similar or better set of outcomes. It was certainly the case that PPP/PFI invitations to tender were generated at break-neck speed and that the learning curve for clients - DfES, LEAs, schools - was exceptionally steep. In some ways the situation was slightly Brexit-like - the working out of what was actually required and what would actually work on the ground struggled to keep up with the endless pressure for fast delivery. It was often asserted that New Labour would only have four years to make urgent repairs to the welfare state and that even if they won a second term, the huge scale of investment that was needed might well be blocked by a resurgent Conservative opposition. The attraction of 'keeping the borrowing off the books' in this context should be obvious.
I offer these comments not as a revisionist justification of PPP/PFI as an ethical strategy but to remind armchair cynics that the problems to which it was a solution were conceived somewhat differently to the current resentments of political discourse, and that the outcomes in education were generally successful given the precipitous plunge into big spending triggered by the expansion of PPP/PFI; the schools built under the 'Building Schools for the Future' programme have largely worked well and are therefore pretty invisible in current debate. The regrettable links between the first experimental academies and the subsequent wholesale privatisation by stealth of state education was not widely understood at the time.