By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Noel Plumridge: has the sparkle gone from social enterprise?

Social enterprises are starting to find that the odds are not in their favour in a cut-throat market, which could make for a bleak picture in a decade’s time, says Noel Plumridge.

Everyone wants social enterprises to succeed. During the last year, health sector pioneers such as Central Surrey Health, created in 2006, have been joined by numerous new “third sector” mutuals. Many are the successors of primary care trust provider arms, created under Cabinet Office-backed “right to provide” arrangements.

But they are entering an increasingly cut-throat market. Central Surrey Health’s bid for the five-year, £500m NHS contract for community services in south west and north west Surrey failed in September.

The Surrey contract went to Assura Medical, owned by Virgin Healthcare, denting some of the optimism within the sector. Nowhere does the Department of Health’s encouraging What are the Advantages of Social Enterprise? mention that when it comes to the business model and the realities of competition, the playing field is not especially level.

Many social enterprises are relatively small in financial terms. They face competition from hospital trusts: keen to grow, buoyed up by growing government interest in “integration”, and increasingly viewing merger and acquisition as a viable strategy. They also face competition from a commercial sector searching for growth opportunities in a moribund economy.

Meanwhile, requirements to put key community services out to tender are denting the financial stability promised by well-meaning PCTs and GPs.

“If we don’t get the work,” one anxious chief executive says, “our three-year contract’s in the toilet.”

So where are the inequities? VAT is one. For historic reasons, NHS providers, funded ultimately by taxation, do not add VAT to their invoices to commissioners. Social enterprises, however, must recharge the VAT they pay on various bought-in services, such as catering or facilities management for community hospitals. With VAT at 20 per cent, NHS trusts and foundation trusts gain a material competitive advantage.

Vicious circle

There is no sign, however, of any review of the foundation trust VAT regime – nor of stamp duty on foundation trust property transactions, where there is a similar disparity.

Then there is ownership of the estate. The destiny of ex-PCT land and buildings has been a vexed issue, but in general foundation trusts have gained another advantage by taking ownership of their premises – an option denied to social enterprises. This brings the power to rationalise capital assets and reduce costs.

“New buildings transform the relationship,” insists John Niland, chief executive of Central Essex Community Services, who sees decent premises as vital for staff and patient happiness.

But decent premises require access to capital, and social enterprises again find themselves at a disadvantage. Many foundations have built sizeable reserves and hence have ready access to cash for capital investment. Large outsourcing businesses can typically borrow at much lower rates than start-ups with minimal capital. And it is a vicious circle: the mutual ethos makes the governors of social enterprises reluctant to build financial reserves.

Pay and pensions has also become a crucial issue. Broadly, the assumption has been that social enterprises carry the additional staffing costs arising from TUPE transfers, and in return gain experienced staff entitled to keep their NHS pensions. (The loophole that allowed the Your Healthcare social enterprise in Kingston, Surrey, to gain existing employer status, allowing new staff to join the NHS pension scheme, was quickly closed.)

Where mutuals have incorporated social care, the local government pension scheme has been less accommodating. Lance Gardner, chief executive of the Care Plus Group in Lincolnshire, complains that the scheme put his local council in an “untenable position”: 178 staff were forced to transfer to NHS pensions. And with pensions becoming a political minefield, there are suggestions that large corporate providers may soon gain the same “direction status” as social enterprises, allowing them to offer NHS pensions to transferring staff – and removing the recruitment advantage of mutuals at a stroke.

What’s galling for social enterprise is a common assumption among their rivals of an inside track in bidding for NHS business. “If we’re successful,” Lance Gardner says, “we’ll be successful by right, not by privilege.”

In Essex, Mr Niland is “prepared to meet any competition on a level playing field.” But where’s the heavy roller? Meanwhile, there’s a growing fear among social enterprises that commissioner caution and vulnerability favours size.

The deciding issue in Central Surrey is understood to have been NHS commissioners’ insistence on a £10m bond as surety: simple enough for a large company or foundation trust, but probably beyond the means of even a well-established mutual. No wonder some trade unions are concerned that social enterprises could be carved up between commercial giants and powerful foundation trusts.

It’s a strategic fear expressed eloquently by Patrick Burns of the Cabinet Office mutual taskforce. He was quoted recently as saying: “If you don’t do something with the commissioning environment, then in five or 10 years’ time you will not be dealing with mutuals, you will be dealing with Serco, Capita and Virgin.”

Readers' comments (8)

  • An excellent article as always Neil, sums up all the issues concisely.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • I agree anon 9.56am and thank you Noel.

    One question I have as somebody in a Social Enterprise is 'Why didn't the brains of the NHS/DoH see this lot coming?' Many managers could and why do you think many NHS staff were against the SE idea? Because precisely those things which Noel has superbly articulated. I still believe NHS staff have been sold short by the SE changeover.

    We shall see how this pans out over the next 5-10 years. But my guess is that there will be merger and acquistions galore as we face years of austerity and the need to cut costs will force commissioners to commission from the big boys, whilst the SE's lose contract after contract and either go bust or are taken over. What a demoralising thought.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Perhaps I'm being a conspiracy theorist but perhaps this was the only way for the powers that be to close some of our crumbling estate without the population marching through the streets in protest or writing to their MP at election time? Our estates have been an issue for years.
    And have you SEEN the number of job adverts at the big 4 and elsewhere for healthcare M&A jobs/ turnaround/ hard FM? (they're on LinkedIn)

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • And the reality for staff on the ground will be what? The same people trying to do the same jobs but with changes to T&C and management culture every few years as contracts shift from one provider to another. And the benefits to patient care are...?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Anon 11:46

    I think they did see it coming. Social Enterprises are the acceptable face of privatisation.

    I think that the CCG support organisation face the same problem in the future. Yes they have the local knowledge and relationships with GP's etc but they have little or know commercial experience at competing for contracts put out to tender. As a result the commercial operators will win them as they have the skills to sell their offer to the CCG's

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • We carefully looked at all the issues, some of which this article covers, got expert advice and said no to becoming a SE because the numbers do not stack up. All involved in the national drive to encourage SE were made aware and so far our decision has been proved right. However, the concept of a co-operative, public membership and staff owned provider model for health care provision remains attractive as it chimes with NHS values, is acceptable to the public and would be highly motivating for staff. The FT model, although not really presented as such, is to all intents and purposes the same thing within the NHS framework except for staff owning the organisation. If FTs could be owned by their staff then we would have something brilliant.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • This is an excellent article Noel which captures the very real issues faced by us who have spun out to become a social enterprise. The playing field is indeed not level as our often smaller not for profit organisations struggle to compete for contracts on the open market with significantly larger and richer for profit organisations. We start from a position of disadvantage and it is difficult to see how SEs can survive if we cannot grow or retain our contracts.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Good article but in a failing economy wasn't this always going to be the case for social enterprises?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Share this



Related images

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

Sign up to get the latest health policy news direct to your inbox