Home > Law, Local Democracy, Terrible Tories > The privatisation of democratic scrutiny: the strange case of Lancashire Healthwatch

The privatisation of democratic scrutiny: the strange case of Lancashire Healthwatch

The Lancashire Evening Telegraph reports (i.e. copies and pastes a press release) :

A NEW organisation to improve health and social services in Lancashire has been unveiled.

Lancashire County Council has joined forces with Parkwood Healthcare to form a new health watchdog called HealthWatch Lancashire.

Parkwood specialises in providing staff, including nurses, care assistants and project workers, to the NHS, private and voluntary organisations.

From April 2013, the new organisation will replace the current Lancashire Local Involvement Network (LINk) as an independent watchdog, listening to local people’s concerns and ensuring the best services for them.

In dryer terms, Parkwood Healthcare has won the contract from the County Council to run Lancashire Healthwatch (see No.5 in May 2012 Cabinet minutes), pursuant to the Health and Social Care Act 2012.  

Clause 183, para 2.2 of that Act requires the following in respect of such a contract:

The arrangements must be made with a body corporate which—

(a) is a social enterprise, and

(b) satisfies such criteria as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State

This makes the award of the contract look very odd.  I have checked out Parkwood Healthcare on the Companies House site and it is a Private Company Limited by Shares.  As such, it is surely outwith the normal definition of a social enterprise. 

So have the County Council acted illegally in awarding the Healthwatch contract to Parkwood Healthcare?  

Well, maybe, or maybe not.  The Health and Social Care Act, courtesy of a late amendment in the Lords (unchallenged by any member of any party), provides a definition of what itmeans by ‘social enterprise’ (Clause 183 para 7):

For the purposes of this section, a body is a social enterprise if—

(a) a person might reasonably consider that it acts for the benefit of the community in England, and

(b) it satisfies such criteria as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Now, I’m a pretty good at ‘reasoning’, even if I say so myself,  but I don’t consider that Parkwood Healthcare ‘acts for the benefit of the community in England’, precisely because the organisation’s legal status is not one normally associated with social enterpise. 

Further, we don’t know what criteria may be prescribed in the secondary regulations, because those regulations are still a matter for consultation; indeed those consultations appear to have a particular focus on what ‘social enterprise’ is to be taken to mean (see Issue 1 in these slides).

So in summary, we have a (Conservative) County Council apparently offering a ‘social enterprise-only’ contract to what is clearly a private firm, but which might just arguably be considered a social enterprise under Andrew Lansley’s new regulations.  Except that they haven’t been issued yet.

Further, the contract has been awarded to a Lancashire-registered firm which, at least judging by the website section on the nursing agency part of its business,  may have a financial interest in delivering some of the services that it is now being contracted to scrutinise*.

At the very least, I think Lancashire County Council needs to be asked a few questions about this**, including whether it has made provision in the contract with Parkwood Healthcare for its termination/withdrawal, in the event that the secondary legislation makes such a contract unlawful.

 

* We should be clear that this is not entirely new. According to its accounts, Parkwood Healthcare already has contracts to “act as the host for voluntary organisations to meet and influence service provision” in Lewisham, Harrow and Greenwich, while also offering nursing agency services in the London area.  

These contracts come under the previous government’s Local Involvement Networks (LINk) legislation, but the difference is that in these cases their ‘hosting’ services have been subject to a degree of accountability from those members that make up the Local Involvement Network itself (cf. the Lancashire LINk board structure, for example). Under the new Healthwatch provisions there appear to be no such safeguards, with LINks simply abolished in favour of Local Healthwatch arrangements. 

** I should stress, not least so as to avoid any risk of legal action, that I am in no way suggesting that Parkwood Healthcare has acted improperly in tendering for the Lancashire Healthwatch contract.  It is the Council’s actions that I question.

 

 

About these ads
  1. July 6, 2012 at 11:57 am | #1

    Good that someone has noticed this. In fact – depite the tone of the press release – Parkwood have a contract ony till 31st March 2013. They obviously want to give the impression that they are there for the long-term but, hopefully, locally-based voluntary and community sector organisations such as BHA-for equality and the Lancashire association of CVS will be successful in winning future tenders to provide support to Healthwatch Lancashire from April next year.

    • paulinlancs
      July 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm | #2

      Very interesting, Nik. If the contract is only till April (and I can see why the county council wouldn’t want it longer at this stage pending the regulations) then the press release stuff is just about a downright lie. How do you know about the contract, btw?

      In any event, I wonder if this is a case where the community right to chalenge might be usefully excercised.

  2. rosemary
    November 3, 2012 at 7:48 am | #3

    Can you tell me if the second part of the regulations, that were still at the ‘consultation’ stage, have now been put in place and where I can find them? I suspect that this must have been done since some longer term contracts are now out for tender for Healthwatch

    So those looking at whether these bids are legal need to know whether bids are acceptable under the second part of the criteria also. I am sure that any companies who are putting in tenders will know this information but as the public, we need to know too.

    Do you know of any other areas where Healthwatch has already been awarded?

    What is this Community Right to challenge?

    Rosemary

    • paulinlancs
      November 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm | #4

      Rosemary

      Ta for reminder. Keep meaning to blog a quick update, which I’ll do later. Briefly a) no, no secondary legisaltnio out yet, now expected end of yeat; but b)most councils now going ahead with tenders anyway; c) risk of major problems; d)greater risk of private ops simply running healthwatch bu backdoor

  1. June 30, 2012 at 7:02 pm | #1
  2. July 22, 2012 at 12:13 pm | #2
  3. November 16, 2012 at 9:05 pm | #3
  4. December 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm | #4
  5. January 13, 2013 at 5:09 pm | #5
  6. January 14, 2013 at 2:24 pm | #6

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: