To what extent does the government provide effective public services to the people of the United Kingdom?

The extent to which the government of the United Kingdom provides effective public services to its citizens and people is generally up for debate. Though the government does provide a wide variety of services - including publicly-funded health services, education, and in some cases housing - many may argue that many services have become either, (i) obsolete; (ii) out-of-date; and/or (iii) unduly unfair on taxpayers for funding such public services. Ultimately, this essay will carefully consider three areas: (a) the National Health Service; (b) higher and further education; and (c) housing and other benefits. It may be argued that though the United Kingdom does, indeed, provides a vast array of public services to its citizens and people, because of the drawbacks previously highlighted, these public services are potentially not fit for purpose.

Firstly, the National Health Service or ‘NHS’ in the United Kingdom is a publicly-funded health service which provides care and treatment to the permanent residents of the United Kingdom: this includes British citizens, Irish citizens, those with pre-settled and/or settled status under the European Union Settlement Scheme ‘EUSS,’ and other certain individuals who meet set criteria. These services may range from diagnosing health-related problems, such as diabetes or cancer, all the way to prescribing medications and offering health-related treatments, such as chemotherapy and surgery. Some may argue that the NHS is fit for purpose because it does what it purports to do: providing access to treatment from wherever one resides in the United Kingdom, and does this at no apparent monetary cost to the recipient. Others may argue that the wide variety of services available within the NHS, such as mental health services, physical health services, and psychological wellbeing services, means that it is effective in its use and deliverance to the peoples of the United Kingdom. However, it is argued here that due to the drawbacks of the NHS, it is far from being wholly effective as stipulated in the question. For instance, the ‘waiting-times’ can amount to several weeks, even months, for an in-person appointment with a physician. This means that many individuals may have to wait for a long time to see an expert in the field to diagnose their problem from the onset. Further, many believe that they pay for an inordinate amount of direct tax on their earnings without any visual or practical benefit, especially those who rarely make use of the NHS. Even more interestingly, many people who do not have a permanent status in the United Kingdom, such as illegal immigrants or refugees, arguably do not have the same level of access to the NHS as British citizens may do. Additionally, some argue that the NHS runs a deficit monetarily across different areas of the United Kingdom, meaning that the cost of running a publicly-funded health service outweighs the benefits greatly. All these points mean that it is arguable that though the NHS provides somewhat good or decent services to the peoples of the United Kingdom, it is likely that this is far from being effective. Potential improvements in the services provided may include reducing waiting times and increasing staff levels and defining exactly who may or may not benefit from such services. Indeed, many direct tax-payers within the United Kingdom may be unwilling to fund health services for individuals who do not have a permanent status in the United Kingdom, which means that this is very much a ‘work-in-progress.’

Secondly, the government either directly or indirectly funds a number of further and higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, which includes colleges and universities. This means that many individuals, more now than ever before, have greater access to education and furthering their educational and career objectives. (For instance, an individual may seek to apply for admission to read medicine at university in the United Kingdom at a wide variety of notable institutions, provided they meet the admission requirements, and they would indirectly be the recipient of educational services by the government, which funds such institutions.) However, the extent to which the university sector is effective or not is another matter. Many further education colleges and higher education universities are facing monetary deficits, which means that a multitude of staff redundancies and course closures have been administered. This means that less and less courses and staff expertise is offered to students who may very well be interested in pursuing a variety of subjects at a higher level, including lesser-read subjects such as art history, anthropology, and archaeology. Further, the government-backed student loans system means that students in the recipient of tuition-fee loans and maintenance loans may ‘chew off’ more than they bargained for; many students spend the rest of their working lives attempting to clear their student loan debt, only to realise the extortionate interest rates applied means that they never may be able to clear it. Additionally, some argue regarding the course contents in themselves; many staff at universities attempt to propagate certain political perspectives, rather than allowing students to think for themselves and come to their own rational judgments and conclusions; this means that rather than ‘educating’ the students, staff have become more enveloped in their own research objectives. Ultimately, it is argued that though the further and higher education sector in the United Kingdom is very well established and, indeed, very reputable globally, there are many sectors in which it may be improved to prove to be effective.

Thirdly, the provision of ‘benefits’ - which may encapsulate elements such as housing and universal credit - is arguably not fit for purpose. There are many recipients of such benefits who may not be entitled to them; for instance, they may not be permanent residents of the United Kingdom, and perhaps there are not enough safeguards or ‘buffers’ in check to ensure recipients are fully entitled to receive them. Though a wide variety of benefits are offered, including universal credit, some argue that the waiting times are too long, forcing many into instances of homelessness, which especially applies to those who attempt to apply for housing benefit. Further, it is argued that not enough is done by the government to ensure individuals, especially young adults, are able to join the ‘job ladder’ or ‘property ladder’ because of the innate problems created within the country. This includes high amounts of immigration from alternative countries, risking the current job market being flooded by an unusual amount of applications from individuals all over the world, meaning many people may be without employment, and would have to then claim benefits such as universal credit to just get by. Additionally, housing is a major problem within the country; it is argued that there isn’t enough real-estate development occurring within major cities - including London, Birmingham, and Manchester - to ensure that everyone is suitably housed. Indeed, even when they are, it is argued that there are times when this housing is not ‘fit-for-purpose,’ with issues such as mould, infestation, or other housing-related issues, such as unworkable kitchens and/or toilets.

Furthermore, it is argued that though the United Kingdom’s government seemingly does its best to ensure all individuals are catered for with the provision of adequate public-services, including the NHS, state-funded education, and benefits, it usually does not go far enough to be effective in essence. This is because there are many intricate issues as previously detailed - such as the NHS waiting times, educative loans, and lacklustre provision of benefits - which means that there is still a long way the government has to go to prove to be completely effective.