Last Thursday Liam Byrne asked Chris Grayling "if he will publish all (a) internal correspondence of his Department and (b) correspondence with other Departments relating to the allegations of fraud at A4e." The answer was: "The Department cannot publish information relating to the current allegations of fraud as this is a police matter and investigations are ongoing. " Which is very convenient. The police investigation into one local incident, along with the DWP's investigation into "all relationships" with A4e would appear to close down all discussion of the subject for the foreseeable future. And now we learn that the Skills Funding Agency is conducting its own review of contracts with A4e for prison education. The SFA said: "The Agency has decided that Agency auditors will work alongside A4e’s auditors to complete this exercise and provide additional assurance to the Agency that contracts are being delivered in accordance with our requirements. In the current context the Skills Funding Agency is vigilant and continues to monitor the situation very closely.” Good. But again, this seems to put on hold the airing of concerns. All those MPs who received evidence and complaints from clients and staff of the company will have handed their dossiers to the DWP. And what of the journalists who were eagerly soliciting stories? Has the official investigation closed down their interest? Are editors afraid that publication could be seen to prejudice the process? Or have they just got bored with the subject?
Maybe they are right. Critics of A4e could scarcely have asked for more than has happened lately. So should we take a step back, shut up for a bit, and wait for the results of the investigations? There shouldn't be too long to wait. The SFA needs to get the new contracts up and running. And the DWP can't afford to let this drag on until the WP figures have to be published. For the government this is about damage limitation, and we would be very surprised if any drastic action resulted. So what now?
Tax payers money is an isssue here. keep up the pressure until all details of alleged fraud against the taxpayer by A4E is released.
ReplyDeleteThe problem as always is that it is not A4e that is likely to have defrauded anyone, but employees acting on their own behalf, in pursuit of personal gain. The investigations or rather, reassurance exercises - that is really what they are - have come about through media pressure. A pretty good result for the taxpayer actually, and for A4e - assuming there are no skeletons in the closet. It will likely give them a clean bill of health and if it does not, yet another taxpayer bonus. I shouldn't expect too much either way though. Government Department Auditors and company auditors are looking at these sort of things on an ongoing basis anyway, as well as the vast majority of honest managers and supervisors who have to sign things off on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside.disgruntled ex employees make poor witnesses to anything and lay themselves open to charge if they have acted fraudulently, under whatever pretence. And this was all years ago anyway. It would have been audited then. Unless something comes out of the woodwork now and DWP says that it can't, as the new contracts are watertight, I can't see where this goes now.
So.Assuming the stuff by the Mail and the Guardian was done for the best of motives, a good result all round. The vindictive have claimed Emma Harrison's scalp, though Icarus like, she flew too close to the sun and was the author of her own downfall. The taxpayer gets reassured, the private sector gets a bloody good warning, checking will remain tight on an ongoing bais and everyone has had a chance to air their conspiracy theories. Result all round.
The bigger picture is the role of the private sector in this kind of thing, but that is political, not legal. Looking wider, how do you find jobs for people in times of recession? In that regard,I would spare a thought for the vast majority of A4e and other company employees, as well as Jobcentre Plus, who are probably doing their best in difficult circumstances.
For now though I think it is "Move along now. Nothing to see here."
I take issue with you on one thing. You say that "this was all years ago". At most it's 6 years ago, and the latest allegations concern current contracts. That's what sparked the investigation; they couldn't continue to say that it was all in the past.
DeleteRubber Band
DeleteI agree with Historian. The latest audit has been sparked by allegations of wrongdoing in relation to Mandatory Work Activity, which is something to do with the new Work Programmme scheme.
Which is embarrassing for Chris Grayling, given that he insisted that there is/was no possible way for anyone to fiddle the new Work Programme scheme.
It might well be that the DWP's latest investigation will reveal nothing except that the staff in just one or two A4E offices, somewhere in the South East, found a way to fiddle the MWA scheme. If those are the facts then it would not be possible for the DWP to allege "systemic" fraud by A4E.
Disgruntled ex-employees usually make very good witnesses, as a matter of fact, contrary to your own assertion. They tend to speak with conviction, are obviously telling the truth and they are often able to support their allegations with hard evidence.
The question for any sensible employer should be, "Why are so many of my ex-employees disgruntled? Why are they so upset with me that they would get my business closed down if they could? What have I been doing so badly that I have failed to secure the loyalty and support of my staff, both present and past? What impression do these on-going scandals give to the people who might otherwise apply for the job vacancies that I wish to fill, both now and in the future? There is a risk that the best candidates will not apply for the vacancies because they will decide that they do not wish to get involved with an organisation like mine, which seems to them to attract so much scandal."
That is what the Board of A4E should be thinking, in my view. Continually blaming a minority of junior staff members is the gold-platedly certain method of losing both employee-support and public sympathy.
"The problem as always is that it is not A4e that is likely to have defrauded anyone, but employees acting on their own behalf, in pursuit of personal gain."
DeleteSorry, but this is a cop out. And a rather weak one at that. If A4e staff committed fraud on A4e's premises, used A4e equipment, on A4e's time, under the very noses of A4e branch managers, then this is a very serious issue for A4e as well as the Whole W2W sector, the DWP and the relevant ministers. I do not see how anyone, other than an apologist for A4e can see it otherwise.
If fraud is uncovered by these current investigations, then A4e management may not be guilty of the fraud themselves. However they are guilty of one of both of these:
A) Encouraging a culture of fraud.
B) Falling asleep on the job and allowing such fraud to take place.
The 'rogue' employee excuse did not work for News Int'l. It should not work for A4e either!
Perhaps you could let me know what particular allegations partain to the current Work Programme? Maybe I missed that? I thought the police investigations were all from previous programmes.
ReplyDeleteIt relates to the Mandatory Work related Activity programme.
DeleteThe moment we stop questioning these providers, Means they will carry on doing unethical actions. We have to fight for the rights.
ReplyDeleteBy not questioning, by not saying we need oversight, we need them to be held accountable for the many millions they have been given after promising this or that.
If ex staff, ex clients are ignored how can the system change to benefit everyone else. It isn't the Work experience part that people are objecting too, It is the for profit motives of a4e, and Serco and the others. When people are treated like tick boxes, when people are treated as commodities THAT is the problem.
Ah yes indeed. The allegation relates to a local contract and is believed to involve a relatively small amount of money.
ReplyDeleteIn other words a sub contract not actually done by A4e, but a partner. Not much meat on that bone I'm afraid.
I have no doubt this will all go down as a few rogue employees, even though it is obviously a systemic problem caused and perhaps encouraged (which will be difficult to prove) by management pressure.
ReplyDeleteWhat I still find disgusting though is Emma Harrison pocketing £8m a year when her business performs so poorly, in an ideal world you'd like to think that Emma would realise that 8% success rate is simply not good enough and plough that money into providing a better service. Unfortunately, that is not how the private sector works... like most private sector services they have no shame in providing a bare bones service bordering on utter failure and banking as much profit as they can for themselves.
Maybe there aren't many vacancies available in this climate but then that begs the question why are we throwing so much more at A4e and co in the first place? you don't throw money at a fisherman to fish if the lake has dried up do you?
Anon: Systemic fraud is not (or is very rarely)caused by management pressure no matter how much you'd like it to be. As for Emma - well - you and I might think it a lot of money. I do, but in the great scheme of things it isn't. DWP admin budget nearly £4 billion. Social Security payments are £150 billion. You could lose Emma's dosh in the rounding. As for performance, I don't think anyone knows the true figures, but if they are low, the suppliers will get less dosh. Of course if it was done in house, the costs might just might be less, but that's doubtful.
ReplyDelete"that begs the question why are we throwing so much more at A4e and co in the first place? you don't throw money at a fisherman to fish if the lake has dried up do you?"
Do you just leave the unemployed to get on with it then?
It is a tricky one this.
I certainly don't agree with your assumptions, which are ideological and not based on fact.
DeleteI'm assuming that's my assumptions. Perhaps you could tell me what they are and what ideology you disagree with. What I have tried to do is lay out some analysis of what is going on and where it is likely to lead, rather than emotional rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteiMatt has a fair point when he says "Sorry, but this is a cop out. And a rather weak one at that. If A4e staff committed fraud on A4e's premises, used A4e equipment, on A4e's time, under the very noses of A4e branch managers, then this is a very serious issue for A4e as well as the Whole W2W sector, the DWP and the relevant ministers. I do not see how anyone, other than an apologist for A4e can see it otherwise."
This is absolutely true for the cases that have been uncovered, but what is, or will be as telling is how they were discovered and how widespread they are. If local, then there is little to answer and if widespread then there is a very serious matter indeed which will be met with severe punishment.
That's the key of the matter, but we don't know which it is and my betting, not that I have any real idea except that it usually is, is that it was a rogue occurrence. Poor management controls must have had a part in it, but again we don't know the extent of it.
It is easy to accuse those that don't fit in with your theories of being an "apologist", but an attempt to look at it all coldly, rather than emotionally is surely not such a bad thing?
I think iMatt is correct in most of what he says and his News International analogy is a good one, but only if there is evidence of systemic fraud or abuse that was known about and tolerated or encouraged by management. In News International there seems to be evidence, but in this case, my betting remains that there won't be.
But I've no axe to grind. I've no inside knowledge of A4e and I'm just as happy to be wrong. I do have experience in the past (I'm retired) of overseeing major third party procurement contracts though, hence my interest and my bet as to which way it will go.
It is almost always cock up rather than conspiracy.
"Of course if it was done in house, the costs might just might be less, but that's doubtful." That's an assumption about the delivery of public services by private companies which I would characterise as ideological. And it's not based on fact.
Delete"Do you just leave the unemployed to get on with it then?" Again, an assumption that it's private companies or nothing. And it's not an argument to say that everybody who disagrees with you is using emotional rhetoric.
My experience goes back far enough to remember when New Deal budgets were held by Jobcentre Plus regionally, and private companies were used in a flexible way.
You mistake emotion with current and ex-clients of A4e expressing their heartfelt and honest opinions and indeed EXPERIENCES of the company. Yes, some will be emotional. And why not? A4e has treated many people very shabbily in the past. When they stood up for themselves and made their views heard, they were derided, belittled and shouted down. Some even accuse A4e of verbal bullying.
DeleteTo simply continuing to dismiss alleged fraud at A4e as nothing or at least something that is only due 'rouge' individuals is again not good enough. This simply lets A4e off the hook as they can simply pass the buck and sweep the problem under the carpet. "Not our fault, guv, blame those 'rogue' employees WE hired, WE paid, using OUR equipment, on OUR time, on OUR watch and under OUR very noses".
When the Met Police were accused of 'Institutional Racism' by the McPherson Report, no one was calling the head of the Met a racist. No one was calling every last Met copper a racist. What the report concluded was that that there was a culture that bred casual racism and allowed it to continue.
If A4e can be separated from its 'rogue' employees, one still has to ask:
Why on earth did these employees think their behaviour was acceptable? What was it within A4e that made them think this way?
The reason the costs might be less is doubtful is that the Government, continuing the previous government's policy, has run down JC Plus to the extent that it couldn't readily do this any more. Not a policy I agree with or agreed with. I agree your final point on how to use the private sector is sensible, but doubt if it could be done in the same way now. The in house infrastructure has gone and it would be costly to build it up again and I doubt if the government would do so.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would be very happy to have the unemployed helped by DWP. That is what should have been happening. I would never have given the work to the private sector in the first place. Now that might be ideological I suppose.