Social workers vent spleen over new ‘quango’

While denying that it is bitter, the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) has called on the government to explain why it appears to have been sidelined and why £30m is being used to establish a new quango – the College of Social Work – that would be little more than “a recruiting body to attract new members to Unison”.

Just as the coalition is preparing for a wave of public sector strikes on 30 November, the Departments of Health and Education have endorsed a partnership deal between new quango the College of Social Work and Unison. BASW has asked a series of questions in a document presented to the Prime Minister and called for immediate personal intervention and an inquiry.

Following talks with BASW this week, Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has agreed to refer the matter to the National Audit Office.

The BASW document pointed out: the £5m publicly funded College of Social Work (CSW) is offering its £270 membership to Unison members only for a cut price £60, the Department of Education has insisted that the CSW completes an exclusive service level agreement with Unison by 2012; and ministers have failed to tender for the £1m contract to administer the £25m a year Social Work Education Grant and awarded it straight to the “Unison-dominated” CSW.

BASW chief executive Hilton Dawson said: “While David Cameron calls for ‘more transparency in public procurement’, and attacks the Labour party’s trade union links, his education and health ministers have sanctioned the use of taxpayer [sic] money in secret deals that will benefit Unison and sustain the sort of quango the coalition said would be abolished.

“Even worse than the cavalier attitude to public probity and the use of scarce public resources is this grubby approach to founding an organisation which is supposed to support social workers in helping children and the most vulnerable adults in our society.

“I hope that the Prime Minister backed by the whole of Parliament will act immediately to put the college on a firm and ethical footing – and make sure that taxpayers’ money is better used.”

Here’s the full letter that Dawson wrote to Cameron:

Dear Prime Minister

I am writing to raise an issue of probity and the use of public funds by your Government and your contractors. We are speaking out after great thought and consideration, with some reluctance, as an organisation of integrity. I believe your speech on public procurement, made on 11th February this year, is of real relevance to this matter, as are the Nolan Principles on standards in public life.

I am concerned about the use of £5 million of public funds which have been made available to the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) to establish a College of Social Work and the potential use of £25 million per annum of public money contained in the Social Work Education Grant (SWEG), which I understand that the College will administer from 2012.

My concern is that SCIE and the Interim Board of the College have come to a private arrangement with Unison which they have adamantly refused to disclose in full over the course of months of negotiations. What we know of this private deal makes no apparent commercial or any other sort of sense and yet it seems to have been endorsed by the Department for Education.

This raises a number of questions:

1. Is it appropriate to use public funds to attract members exclusively to Unison by underwriting a huge discount to College fees for this trade union’s members only?
2. What arrangements are in place for Unison to financially subsidise the College of Social Work and/or the Social Care Institute for Excellence?
3. Why has there not been a transparent tendering process for:
a) The original contract to develop a College of Social Work placed with SCIE by the previous government but confirmed by the coalition administration?
b) The provision of trade union services to the College?
c) The administration of the £25m per annum Social Work Education Grant (SWEG) from 2012?
4. What influence will Unison have upon the disbursement of £25m of public funds contained in the Social Work Education Grant from 2012?
5. BASW has offered to legitimately and lawfully transfer our whole undertaking – assets in excess of £1 million and 14,000 members – into the College. Why does the private deal with Unison take such precedence that the Interim Board are now not prepared to even consider this until their Service Level Agreement with the union is in place?
6. Why has a division of government, the Department for Education, taken it upon itself to agree an objective for 2012 for the Interim Board that they will establish a Service Level Agreement with a major public sector trade union, Unison?
7. Why, seven months ago, while discussions were taking place with BASW about the use of our office premises – which actually deliver significant income through commercial sublets – did the Interim Board conclude a deal with its parent body, SCIE, to rent space in their central London offices for a full 12 months beyond the end of the Board’s life? How can this use of public money be justified in commercial or ethical terms?

Put simply, is this a proper way to establish a body which everyone hopes will help to improve social workers’ ability to protect children and vulnerable adults? If there is nothing wrong with the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the Interim Board of the College and Unison why has the Interim Board so adamantly refused to disclose it even in confidential meetings where BASW has provided them with significant information about our own commercial arrangements?

BASW first proposed the idea of a College of Social Work to the Social Work Taskforce and we remain committed to merging into a future College which has good working relationships with all sector trade unions.

However, we will not be coerced or colluded into backing a College which will not be sustainable and in which Unison – or anyone else for that matter – plays an inordinately influential role.

We do not believe that the Interim Board’s intention to create a College of Social Work without BASW means that it is going it alone to create something ‘new’. In fact it is clear that rather than try to engage with both of us the Interim Board has chosen Unison as a partner over BASW – even though it need not be a choice, and even though this is against the interests of social work. It seems the Interim Board is more prepared to risk competition with us than to disclose what it has agreed with Unison.

I am aware that in writing this letter, and in due course publishing it, I will invite criticism of BASW and of myself. All our previous efforts to further negotiations have been responded to with spurious arguments and ill-founded allegations of personal and organisational interests. The enclosed background information provides clear evidence that BASW has always operated in good faith and with honesty throughout. We will not be deterred by anyone from speaking out when something seems so manifestly wrong.

I would be most grateful for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely

Hilton Dawson
Chief Executive