A recent article in Third Sector magazine, reports a speech at the Charity Finance Group Northern Conference by Geoff Little, deputy Chief Executive at Manchester City Council. According to Mr Little Councils should not offer charities three-year funding agreements, but should “commission and de-commission at will”. It seems likely that Mr Little understands the working of local Government and one hopes also its vital role in commissioning services. However perhaps charitably (scuse the pun) he needs a bit of revision where it comes to the way in which the voluntary sector actually operates.

To commission and de-commission at will implies that contracts are being made and broken with little regard for the process. The provision of services on that basis depend on one of two mechanisms, both of which are potentially costly. The first is achieved by employing contractors, often on an hourly basis whose pay rates are based on their lack of certainty of being retained (ie they cost a lot), or who are part of an industry which values its labour very cheaply and provides little certainty as a matter of course (ie they are low paid) which carries its own penalties. The second is that the contract gets broken and the contractor could sue the Council for breach of contract. Of course the deputy Chief Executive could have been exaggerating to make an impact.

Some of the reasons why local government and other statutory agencies contract services to the voluntary sector is that they are often more responsive to local needs and new ideas than a large institutional service provider and they have a stronger commitment to local communities and their employees than the private sector is able to offer (due to the primary focus being profit and shareholder return). They also find it easier to encourage end users to participate in both the planning and delivery of the services provided. Voluntary sector organisations are usually well suited to adapting to change, but this flexibility is something that should be focused on the needs of residents and any other clients, not on an incoherent or lazy commissioning process.

The challenge for local Government is that they have final responsibility for delivering a range of services to a community that can change without notice and that central Government is prone to change its mind, sometimes on a whim and it has a tendency to blame local Government for a range of matters that are actually the fault of other people. However once the local council stops absorbing these pressures and passes them on directly to their contractors, their own role comes into question. It is not as though popular support for local Government is at an all time high. Let us hope that Mr Little takes the advice that has no doubt been given to him ever since he opened his mouth and stuck both feet in as far as they could go. His role as a Commissioner is one that depends on understanding his suppliers as well as his paymaster.