LAST week the Sunday Times launched a much-trumpeted undercover investigation into work conditions at DVLA Offices in Swansea.
Superficially, it aimed to uncover inefficient working systems in an important public agency and inevitably found what it was looking for, the way newspaper investigations often do.
The feature lambasted the DVLA calling it a “disgrace” and insisted that Transport Secretary Grant Shapps carry out a swift review of its functions and take action to address a “culture of indolence, indifference and apathy.”
The investigation offered up one de rigueur example of indolence, a home-worker who complained that answering email got in the way of his Netflix binging.
The Times investigation began from a reasonable starting point that: “A driving licence is essential to the livelihood of millions. The present blockage is a shameful and unnecessary hold-up to all attempts to recover from the pandemic,” and demanded. “It must be resolved now”.
So far, so predictable. These undercover operations are commonplace within consumer affairs journalism. Many are justifiable, a few are illuminating but too many are simply the grumblings of the week purporting to be brave journalism.
Often, they come as a by-product of a “fishing expedition” where a young freelance worker is sent into a call centre or a local council office to explore malpractice, and guess what, they usually find something, the worker who surfs the web in the toilet, the manager who picks his nose or the supervisor with a sexist turn of phrase.
By Monday last, the Times columnist Clare Foges had piled on, offering a damning indictment of wider public ownership in a column headlined: “Public sector is far too tolerant of mediocrity.”
The Times had not strayed far from a deeply ingrained editorial belief that the free market is best.
Notwithstanding recent displays of supporter for NHS workers in the first phase of the Covid pandemic, the public sector is routinely portrayed as a basket case, desperately in need of the slick machinations of the free market.
But look under bonnet and it’s often a quite different story. Since the break-up and privatisation of British Rail between 1994 and 1997, the average price of a train journey has increased by 23.5% in real terms and train rolling stock is on average older than it was in 1996, whist train-leasing companies drain millions out of the system.
Much as the right-of-centre press bang on about the failures of the public sector repeated surveys suggest up to 64% of the public want the railways to be back in public ownership.
Even stripping out the smoky nostalgia that clings to rail travel, public ownership is by far the most preferred ownership option. According to the independent global media organisation, openDemocracy, the country would save £1bn a year, enough to fund an 18% cut in rail fares and pay for 100 miles of new railway track.
The substantial wastage is not down to skiving signalmen nor the women in the ticket office watching Outlander, it’s the money that escapes to shareholder profits, fragmentation, and the higher cost of borrowing in the private sector.
What is rarely conceded is that the data rarely backs up these prejudicial hunches about public service industries. The communications regulator Ofcom regularly publishes reports on consumer experience and unlike The Times’s fishing expeditions are stacked with facts and low on opinion.
You will not be surprised to learn that among the worst performers in the communications industry are privately owned companies, the ones’ that benefitted from open tender.
Because we use them routinely, mobile phones now attract more complaints than most other products and services. Vodafone often tops the consumer complaints league, a recent Ofcom survey revealed that 26 complaints were upheld per 100,000 customers in the third quarter of last year, ahead of Plusnet on 23 and Virgin on 20.
Half of Vodafone’s complaints related to faults, service, and provisioning issues. The other big drivers of complaints to the firm were how it handled complaints (20%) and issues over switching provider (15%).
There is a deep irony in Vodafone’s poor showing, in that it has substantial private equity investment and is exposed to global capital, being in part owned by the Government of India (35.8%).
Periodically, a privately owned company performs so woefully that it becomes an everyday byword for either greed or incompetence. Despite the widespread media contempt for public bodies it is actually privately owned and supposedly entrepreneurial companies that are often the punchline.
Good examples are Ryanair, where charges are added for every small comfort and Hermes in the delivery industry, where customers fear their new trainers have been thrown over a wall in Wolverhampton.
INTERESTINGLY, these “bad apple” companies are named and shamed but the underlying system of low-cost capitalism and shoddy customer service is the preferred system of the current government.
During the economic crises that engulfed business during Covid some of the darlings of the Tory Party witnessed a collapse in their share price. The retail landlord company Hammerson lost 70% of its value and there was a haemorrhage of value among travel and leisure operators. Although it would be callous to lay the blame at the commercial sector’s door, we are frequently told that they are more nimble than the public sector. We now know that means having Chris Grayling’s mobile number to offer him substandard medical bibs.
The Conservatives have a blind spot for the serial failings of private enterprise, and their pals in the CBI and free-market pressure groups are hardwired to bristle at employment law and workers’ rights.
We should never forget that Brexit was not simply about “taking back control” and returning to some prelapsarian England, it was about escaping from the EU’s labour laws and the wealth transparency that Brussels was insisting on.
With Scotland’s political future hinging on constitutional change, we can be easily seduced into the belief that the Conservatives are by-and-large a Unionist party, thus underplaying the deep free-market instincts that lurk at their heart.
Only last week we were treated to one of the great employment hypocrisies of our time. P&O ferries engaged in a cruelly contrived fire and re-hire scheme which made widespread redundancies, and then employed replacement staff on worse conditions. Some 800 crew members were told they were surplus to requirements and being let go with immediate effect, only to be replaced with agency workers.
Shapps, the modern personification of ineffectiveness sent a virtue signally tweet to the CEO of P&O chastising the company, such was its power and relevance it was sent to the wrong guy, someone who had retired many moons ago.
In a brilliantly crafted critique of P&O the Liverpool writer Frank Cottrell Boyce, described a picket-line protest at Dover, in which he flamed the Tory MP for Dover, Natalie Elphicke, who “went down to the port to protest. Like your neighbourhood arsonist offering you a flask of tea over the smoking ruins of your house”.
Elphicke’s visit was empty showboating. She was met with shouts of “shame on you” from the sacked workers at least some of whom knew she had previously abstained rather than backing a Labour-led bill that would outlaw the hire-and-fire policies that P&O had deployed.
The Tories lined up like sheep to vote against workers’ rights. They always have done and they always will.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel