Thursday 10 April 2014

G4S "cleared"

The news slipped through.  The Telegraph reported it briefly, the BBC website more fully.  But, apart from Paul Lewis on Twitter, no one else has noticed, or thinks it's important.  G4S can again bid for government contracts.  Yes, after bodging contracts and then, along with Serco, defrauding the government over the tagging contract to the tune of £109m, the company was temporarily barred from bidding for its slice of public money.  But now, "The Cabinet Office said G4S had taken steps to address weakness in its operations and its 'corporate renewal plan represented the right direction of travel to meet our expectations as a customer'."  And this comes while the Serious Fraud Office is still investigating.  So keen is the government to get G4S back into the fold that they are not even waiting for the outcome of that.  
What's the urgency?  Well, there were those prisons which Grayling wanted to privatise but couldn't because Serco and G4S, the only bidders, had been banished.  And there are more contracts coming up.  We still haven't heard who the providers are to be for Community Work Placements.  And another nice little earner is up for grabs, barely noticed.  This is the Health and Work Service (HWS), contracts to "intervene" in the lives of people who are off work sick and get them back to work.  Read about it here.  It won't be payment by results, and it needs the consent of employees.  One can expect the usual suspects, including A4e and, of course, G4S, to be bidding.
It makes no sense at all to people outside the weird world of government procurement and outsourcing that providers which have failed to deliver and have ripped you off should be welcome to bid again.  The Public Accounts Committee was astonished that previous performance couldn't be taken into account.  

21 comments:

  1. I noticed the announcements that G4S had been allowed to return to the govt’s fold but the G4S news was overshadowed hugely by the Maria Miller scandal – yet another example of Dave’s lack of intelligent personal judgement, that scandal, imho.

    As I understood it a while back, the G4S chap who made such a mess of supplying security guards for the Olympics has left G4S, as has the one who made such a mess of tagging dead people electronically, as has Nick Buckles (aka “The Mullet” because of his hairdo.)

    I suspect that the outsourcers eventually twigged that it was time to get rid of their “stars” and to give their jobs to much quieter types who are not interested in personal celebrity. The “stars” were the creatures of a now-bygone era. A4e did the same with their own daft Emma Harrison.

    Meanwhile, the most effective commercial thumbscrew is money. No money + no more contracts = £109 million pretty quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know what makes me more angry the fact that G4S are to be allowed to bid for public sector contracts or the BBC's bland article. The article offers no criticism. They are now so obsessed with 'objective' reporting and Tory threats to the BBC license its journalism has become no more than a factual account of any event. Like the Tory government it ignores criticism and in doing so in practise has evolved into an arm of the Tory press corp.

    Where are the documentaries investigating G4S, A4E, ATOS, the Work Programme?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder if this "verdict" is a response to the DWP touting the contract for delivering WCAs since last September and has apparently, not yet attracted one bid. I assume no one wants the contract as it has been so toxic to ATOS as a brand.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Some of us noticed the rehabilitation of G4S, but we were busy slaying another dragon!

    We only have to look at the 'success' of the likes of G4S and A4E in getting sick people back into work to know that these HWS 'interventions' will make things worse.

    When you're off work sick, or have had an accident, the last thing you'd want is 'the threat' of one of these goons coming around to help. It might be voluntary, but we all know the dwp's definition of voluntary.
    There's another article on HWS on that WBS site, looks like it's being watered down already.
    http://www.wsandb.co.uk/wsb/news/2338680/exclusive-dwp-slashes-number-of-employees-hws-will-assist-by-a-third

    ReplyDelete
  5. Suppose I work for Higginbottoms & Son LTD as their head of sales and marketing. I commit blatant fraud which risks damaging their image. Rather than any kind of warning, written or verbal, I am simply given a light touch reprimand and offer to pay back some of the monies earned under false pretences. Further more, not only do I keep my job, I am given ever more lucrative accounts. I cannot be dismissed because no one else is ever promoted beyond a certain level.

    Many would call me lucky and my bosses weak under such circumstances. Yet is this not similar to what G4s and Serco have just gotten away with? Governments love to be tough and macho towards jobseekers and those with disabilities. Yet with G4s, Serco, Capita, A4e, Carillion, etc., the government knows these outsourcing companies effectively have them over a barrel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A more apt analogy would be to suppose that you were a supplier to the firm. In what circumstances would you continue to be a supplier if you had behaved as G4S has done?

      Delete
  6. 'Governments love to be tough and macho towards jobseekers and those with disabilities.'

    The Tory government are attacking the unemployed as a diversion to their privatisation of the public sector. And the British public have bought it (accepting those who have been posting on here, of course!).

    There is very little criticism of Tory corporate facsim, yet plenty of people still blaming the long-term unemployed for the lack of jobs (which is ironically fuelled by public sector job cuts).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I signed on today,but I was seen by a "Hit Squad" adviser,it started out pleasant but quickly turned.."I see you have not granted access to your UJM account" Yes,I was informed that it was Mandatory,this proved to be a lie. "I have looked at your booklet and find that you have not written down enough information,this may raise a doubt" I produced my daily notebook regarding my job search activity "Sorry,you need to put it in the Claimant booklet or it does not count" The booklet has about a 3X5 space,if you let me access a IAD I can print you out a screen shot "That would not be time or cost effective" I asked if she had read the UJM tool kit regarding proof of Jobsearch? "No" can I please see a manager? "No,but this is your final warning" ...Deep breath, change of tact..CWP,has it started?...I would like a placement or Training ,if these are not available I would like to sign on daily and take any help available in order to impress upon you that I am willing to engage with you to enhance my prospects of employment...."We have not rolled that out yet" Oh,I have a DWP press release dated Sept 2013 "Everybody that has completed the WP and not found employment will within a few days of returning either be in Training,a Work Placement or on MIR"....It has been 6 Months,let me pose this question?...I signed a Claimant Commitment with the DWP which is a contract,if I fail to deliver I am Sanctioned,the DWP has failed,what is there liability?......Meeting over.

      Delete
    2. Sick of the Work Programme11 April 2014 at 04:53

      Very interesting, Cromwelk. I suspect that the roll-out of CWP has been significantly delayed, if it starts at all. Quite possibly they are discovering that it is difficult to find enough placements.

      Delete
    3. All pants,no trousers,makes for a good story,similar to the Training and Tailored support on the WP.

      Delete
    4. Cromwell, it looks like I'm up for the "hit squad" this coming Tuesday morning. I posted on this blog a couple of months back that I'd finished the WP but continued signing on as usual and no questions were asked. I knew it would eventually come...This appointment is "upstairs" from where I usually sign on and I know the woman interviewing me is pretty hardcore as I had a few problems with her about a year ago. But, thanks to this blog I know what I'll be up against and will be prepared for any threats she tries to throw at me...

      Delete
  7. Sorry to be bearer of bad news but I am hearing rumours that G4S have cleaned up on the CWP contracts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sick of the Work Programme11 April 2014 at 14:33

      I don't know where you heard that but the latest response to a DWP Freedom of Information request states that the CWP contracts are still out for tender. The response is only dated yesterday:

      https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/202404/response/504324/attach/html/3/FOI%201232%20Response%20100414.pdf.html

      Delete
  8. It's just rumours on the inside. Not usually wrong,but possible, expect announcement soon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The big problem with Workfare is finding the required number of placements. It is one thing issuing provider contracts and but an entirely different (and difficult) problem getting charities to provide placements when the scheme is not voluntary; compulsion contradicts the voluntary ethos of charitable organisations.

    It will be interesting to see if the government give claimants the option of daily signings to address this conflict of interests. They should.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure some charities will go for it, but I've talked to many that find the whole thing unappealing. One of the usual suspects (I won't name them but they feature regularly on anti-workfare blogs etc) commented that while they could make it stack up financially (I'm sceptical that they could, unless they were considering piling high and selling cheap) and they weren't bothered about their reputation, they wouldn't be doing for other - undisclosed - reasons.

      Delete
  10. Historian - I have had a Con local MP put a flyer thru my door suggesting the Tories have created 1.3m FULL-TIME jobs since May 2010. Is this correct? I was under the impression it was just 1.3m jobs NOT full-time jobs i.e. including part-time and casual jobs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Check out sites like Fullfact for the actual figures. But apart from the stats, the government hasn't "created" any jobs. The most they could seriously claim is that they have presided over the conditions which enabled employers to create jobs. And that's very doubtful. The flier will have a contact address on it. Ask the MP for a breakdown of the figures in your own constituency.

      Delete
    2. Can't find anything on Fullfact. Indeed there is very little on the make-up of jobs. Looking on the website its appears to have a right-wing/coalition bias. There is no appreciation of the problem of underemployment or analysis of the unemployment/inflation figures which are heavily 'edited'. That makes me very suspicious. For example I can find no article on the rapid increase in 'self- employment'. This has allowed the govt' to claim unemployment is falling. Why is there no criticism of this?

      Delete
    3. There is information out today. Watch for my next post.

      Delete
  11. It's crazy at the moment, as the post states previous performance does not come into it when bidding. Without going into the nitty gritty it boils down to capacity to deliver finance etc and how much you discount on the proposed finance module. As you can imagine the more you discount more costs you cut.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".