When it was revealed that G4S and Serco had been overcharging by millions on the offender tagging contracts we were assured by Chris Grayling that they would be barred from bidding for any more contracts until a thorough investigation had been carried out (including an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office). But then, a few days after G4S were pronounced "cleared" (though not be the SFO)
they were included in the list of bidders for the probation contracts - so they must have been tendering while supposedly barred. Well, it's now clear; they were never barred in the first place. That's just one of the revelations to come out of the latest hearings of the Public Accounts Committee. As the Guardian reported on Monday, the chair of the PAC, Margaret Hodge, was shocked. The hearings continued today, and the shambles which outsourcing has become was laid bare. Two of the top civil servants in the procurement area are fairly new in the job, and have bags of experience. They were interviewed today, and said they had found that the people doing the work didn't have the skills, experience or competence for the job. There was no contract management. Applications to vary the contracts were numerous, and with one particular contract there had been so many that no one could now remember what the original contract specified. Basically (although they didn't put it like this) the companies have been running rings round the government.
There is obviously a lot more to come out about specific contracts. Right at the end Margaret Hodge reduced the G4S chap to quivering silence when she demanded to know if it was true that in the probation contracts it was specified that if the contract was terminated by either side before it was completed, the company would get the full amount of the contract. Apparently it is true - and she didn't like it.
The last Labour government started this outsourcing bonanza. When the coalition got in they didn't stop to find out whether the competence was there to do it; they just went ahead and outsourced everything that hadn't already been flogged off. And we have been paying the price.
Showing posts with label Margaret Hodge MP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Margaret Hodge MP. Show all posts
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
Work Programme puzzle
It started with a statement from the redoubtable Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the Public Accounts Committee. She is angry at the failure of the Work Programme to help the people it was supposed to help, especially those on ESA. There has been no improvement, she said, since the PAC examined it in 2012, and providers are spending only 46% of what they were meant to spend supporting each client. Then comes the puzzling bit: "It beggars belief that the Department expects to pay at least £31 million in bonuses to all of its contractors despite their poor performance - even the Newcastle College Group whose contract has been terminated will receive a bonus."
I confess to never having heard of these bonus payments. There was little enlightenment from an article by Rajeev Syal in the Guardian. He adds some more figures, but gives the bonus as £25m (and then £31m), while calling it "incentive payments", and saying that the National Audit Office "has discovered that flaws in the work programme contracts meant that the [DWP] is obliged to make incentive payments to even the worst performing providers." The figure isn't dependent on results.
Still confused, I looked at a piece from Sky News. It's clearer. And there's an interesting paragraph: "Figures for the most recent group to have gone through the scheme showed just 32% of participants found jobs - still below the DWP's minimum performance level of 33% and well below its original forecast of 39% and the 42% predicted by the contractors themselves."
Newcastle's local Journal tells us that NCG's contract in North East Yorkshire and the Humber had a success rate of 7.4% - but they're going to get a bonus anyway.
Okay, I must have missed the bit about bonuses when these contracts came out. Perhaps they were negotiated at the same time as the "attachment fees" which meant that the providers would have a steady income and wouldn't be dependent on PbR. But they are certainly a comfort to A4e and the rest.
I confess to never having heard of these bonus payments. There was little enlightenment from an article by Rajeev Syal in the Guardian. He adds some more figures, but gives the bonus as £25m (and then £31m), while calling it "incentive payments", and saying that the National Audit Office "has discovered that flaws in the work programme contracts meant that the [DWP] is obliged to make incentive payments to even the worst performing providers." The figure isn't dependent on results.
Still confused, I looked at a piece from Sky News. It's clearer. And there's an interesting paragraph: "Figures for the most recent group to have gone through the scheme showed just 32% of participants found jobs - still below the DWP's minimum performance level of 33% and well below its original forecast of 39% and the 42% predicted by the contractors themselves."
Newcastle's local Journal tells us that NCG's contract in North East Yorkshire and the Humber had a success rate of 7.4% - but they're going to get a bonus anyway.
Okay, I must have missed the bit about bonuses when these contracts came out. Perhaps they were negotiated at the same time as the "attachment fees" which meant that the providers would have a steady income and wouldn't be dependent on PbR. But they are certainly a comfort to A4e and the rest.
Friday, 21 March 2014
Work Programme stats, and the PAC
We used to complain that no data was being released on the effectiveness of the Work Programme. Now we have all the data we could wish for, it seems, in the figures put out yesterday. You can see the document here. Some key figures are on the first page, but you'll need to get your calculator out. If we look at the "by all referrals" June 2011 to Dec 2013, we see that just under 19% of those on the programme long enough got an outcome. (The Factcheck blog says 17%.) But then look at how that tapers off, so that only 48,000 people were in work long enough for the provider to claim the full payments. In other words, the jobs tend to be temporary. 24,000 got 3-6 months of work, but then were back on the programme, and in all 352,000 have finished the WP and been referred back to the jobcentre. The other key fact from all of this is that while the figures for JSA claimants are considered satisfactory, they are terrible for those on ESA. For a good summary, read Channel 4's Factcheck blog. Looking at the breakdown by provider, we see that A4e isn't the worst-performing, but it's a long way from being the best.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Is it worth it? That's the really important question. Millions have been paid out to companies like A4e to achieve only a little above what would be expected with no intervention at all (and below that with ESA). The likelihood is that the vast majority of the jobs are down to the improving economy. So what's the point?
Other news takes us back to ATOS. The Public Accounts Committee had a go at the civil servants in the DWP and one of the bosses of Atos over the failure of the new PIPs assessment contract. The Guardian reported Margaret Hodge's interrogation of Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary. They have crossed swords before, and her questions revolved around the same issues as she has fumed over with the Work Programme. How can you give a new contract to a company which is in the process of bodging a similar contract? (My phrasing, not hers.) He said, "We are making a decision on the bids in front of us." As he has said before, the procurement process deliberately doesn't look at past performance. And they did not check that what Atos had put in its bid document was true. On the PIPs bid, Atos had claimed to have agreements with a large number of hospital trusts and physiotherapy practices, but far fewer actually signed up in the end. That meant that another claim, that everyone facing assessment would have a centre within an hour's travel time, has gone by the board. Huge backlogs are building up. Hodge had a go at the Atos person for misleading the DWP. But this sort of thing is common with the procurement process which the DWP has shaped. The big companies must form "partnerships" with smaller outfits, and can then list on their bid documents a number of sub-contractors who have, in fact, signed nothing and can duck out once they see the small print.
It's obvious to everybody that there has to be a better way.
Saturday, 15 March 2014
The PAC agrees with us
The Public Accounts Committee has published its report on Contracting out public services to the private sector. It's not a long document, particularly the section on recommendations, and you can read it here. It supports all the things which I and others have been saying for a long time about the perils of outsourcing.
As usual it was not reported in the Tory press. The Guardian and the Independent covered it well, and the BBC mentioned it. The Guardian spoke to Margaret Hodge, chairman of the committee, ahead of the publication. She called the report "damning" and said the DWP was "on the verge of meltdown" with its contracts. There has to be an end to the secrecy surrounding the contracts on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Even the CBI supports that one. And there must be much better management of contracts. The DWP is allowed its usual paragraph of self-justification, and government minister Francis Maude was invited onto the BBC's Today programme to waffle unchallenged about how things were improving.
The Independent's Nigel Morris had a scathing piece much like the Guardian's. The report, he said, "accused ministers of trying to cover up mistakes by refusing to divulge details of contracts." He quotes Margaret Hodge as saying that the absence of competition meant that we have "privately-owned public monopolies which have become too big to fail." The article mentions the A4e fraud case, along with G4S and Serco.
There's another piece on the Guardian's website which puzzles me a bit. It's by Jane Dudman, and it focuses on A4e's part in the PAC's verdict. I'm puzzled because I can't find the opinions she attributes to Margaret Hodge in the report (if you can, let me know). Mrs Hodge wants to know why "scandal-hit" A4e are still in the running for contracts. Dudman goes on: "Last month, four former employees of A4e pleaded guilty in Reading Crown Court to 30 acts of fraud and forgery. But even Hodge was forced to acknowledge this was not a case of individuals trying to enrich themselves. None of the former staff benefited personally, she noted." Now, if Mrs Hodge did say that, we need to tell her that she could well be mistaken. She may be assuming that the profits from this forgery, the false outcome claims, went only to the company. But A4e had the practice, until recently, of paying particular individuals in an office a "commission" for each outcome, and rewarding whole teams for achieving for good outcome figures. Under that system, individuals had every incentive to push up their earnings by pushing up the figures.
One would love to think that the Public Accounts Committee's excellent work would change things, but I suspect it won't.
As usual it was not reported in the Tory press. The Guardian and the Independent covered it well, and the BBC mentioned it. The Guardian spoke to Margaret Hodge, chairman of the committee, ahead of the publication. She called the report "damning" and said the DWP was "on the verge of meltdown" with its contracts. There has to be an end to the secrecy surrounding the contracts on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Even the CBI supports that one. And there must be much better management of contracts. The DWP is allowed its usual paragraph of self-justification, and government minister Francis Maude was invited onto the BBC's Today programme to waffle unchallenged about how things were improving.
The Independent's Nigel Morris had a scathing piece much like the Guardian's. The report, he said, "accused ministers of trying to cover up mistakes by refusing to divulge details of contracts." He quotes Margaret Hodge as saying that the absence of competition meant that we have "privately-owned public monopolies which have become too big to fail." The article mentions the A4e fraud case, along with G4S and Serco.
There's another piece on the Guardian's website which puzzles me a bit. It's by Jane Dudman, and it focuses on A4e's part in the PAC's verdict. I'm puzzled because I can't find the opinions she attributes to Margaret Hodge in the report (if you can, let me know). Mrs Hodge wants to know why "scandal-hit" A4e are still in the running for contracts. Dudman goes on: "Last month, four former employees of A4e pleaded guilty in Reading Crown Court to 30 acts of fraud and forgery. But even Hodge was forced to acknowledge this was not a case of individuals trying to enrich themselves. None of the former staff benefited personally, she noted." Now, if Mrs Hodge did say that, we need to tell her that she could well be mistaken. She may be assuming that the profits from this forgery, the false outcome claims, went only to the company. But A4e had the practice, until recently, of paying particular individuals in an office a "commission" for each outcome, and rewarding whole teams for achieving for good outcome figures. Under that system, individuals had every incentive to push up their earnings by pushing up the figures.
One would love to think that the Public Accounts Committee's excellent work would change things, but I suspect it won't.
Friday, 27 December 2013
.... and a happy New Year
While the more fortunate of us were tucking into our turkey on Christmas Day, even if it was courtesy of a charity in a homeless shelter, Iain Duncan Smith was composing a piece for the Daily Mail. There will, it says, be "No hiding place for those who opt for a life on benefits". He didn't have to think too hard about it. All the familiar cliches and lies are there, like "lifestyle choice". On the benefit cap, for instance, "around 19,000 who would potentially have been subject to the benefit cap have already moved into work". That's two fingers up to the government's own statisticians who told him that the statement was dishonest. But the main point of the piece is to trumpet the new scheme "that will require 6,000 jobseekers to spend 35 hours a week at a supervised jobsearch centre. People who have been out of work for several years or those who are lacking motivation [my italics] will be required to spend up to six months looking for and applying for jobs in return for their benefits."
More dishonest twaddle. This is about sanctioning as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Even if they turn up on time and do as they're told, they'll be sanctioned for "lacking motivation". Some will go into the cash-in-hand economy (which hurts the rest of us) and some will simply be homeless. But it will give the repellent IDS the chance to say that he's got them to sign off. There's no detail about who will run these centres, but they will certainly provide jobs for loads of security staff.
The Mail likes this stuff so much that it has an editorial comment on it. The clever chappy who wrote it thinks that IDS's initiative "will doubtless provoke howls of indignation from the liberal establishment". (Who are they, you may well ask.) "It is a robust approach and there are those on the Left who will say it's cruel. They said the same about the benefit cap, the 'bedroom tax', the unpaid work programme and universal benefit [sic]." I could go on quoting, but it's too nauseating.
The lie about the numbers being driven to get a job by the benefit cap was published by the Telegraph on Christmas Eve, with elaborations and the statement from IDS that it had "pushed 250 people back into work every week". (For those who are not clear why this is a lie, it was pointed out by the statisticians that there is constant "churn", some people coming off benefits and some coming on, and there is no way of knowing how many of those signed off as a direct result of the cap.)
More embarrassing for IDS (no, okay, he is never embarrassed) was the Christmas Eve news that 32,000 people had not received their benefits because of an "error" by the DWP. Not to worry; if they rang up before 5.00 pm they would get the money within 3 hours. Presumably, if they were lucky enough to hear about this, the unfortunate could phone a premium rate number -something which the government has now decreed should stop. The DWP will have to give out private local rate numbers - a victory for Margaret Hodge and her Public Accounts Committee.
Boxing Day brought an interesting exclusive in the Independent. Labour has decided that outsourcing public services is not necessarily a good thing. They've recognised that the contracts don't provide better competition or drive down prices because "what we have in this country now is an oligopoly of a few companies that are not competing effectively and are providing poor value for money for the taxpayer." Hallelujah! Yes, Labour started it, but if they've now seen the light we can only rejoice. Perhaps they'll also do something about the scam reported in the Guardian on Boxing Day. The GMB union is taking a case to court against a marketing company, PerDM, which apparently employs people on a fake self-employment basis and then pays them way below minimum wage.
It's not going to get any better, folks. The best we can hope for in 2014 is that there are more real jobs, and some of those desperate for work and a viable income will escape from the clutches of this appalling government.
More dishonest twaddle. This is about sanctioning as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Even if they turn up on time and do as they're told, they'll be sanctioned for "lacking motivation". Some will go into the cash-in-hand economy (which hurts the rest of us) and some will simply be homeless. But it will give the repellent IDS the chance to say that he's got them to sign off. There's no detail about who will run these centres, but they will certainly provide jobs for loads of security staff.
The Mail likes this stuff so much that it has an editorial comment on it. The clever chappy who wrote it thinks that IDS's initiative "will doubtless provoke howls of indignation from the liberal establishment". (Who are they, you may well ask.) "It is a robust approach and there are those on the Left who will say it's cruel. They said the same about the benefit cap, the 'bedroom tax', the unpaid work programme and universal benefit [sic]." I could go on quoting, but it's too nauseating.
The lie about the numbers being driven to get a job by the benefit cap was published by the Telegraph on Christmas Eve, with elaborations and the statement from IDS that it had "pushed 250 people back into work every week". (For those who are not clear why this is a lie, it was pointed out by the statisticians that there is constant "churn", some people coming off benefits and some coming on, and there is no way of knowing how many of those signed off as a direct result of the cap.)
More embarrassing for IDS (no, okay, he is never embarrassed) was the Christmas Eve news that 32,000 people had not received their benefits because of an "error" by the DWP. Not to worry; if they rang up before 5.00 pm they would get the money within 3 hours. Presumably, if they were lucky enough to hear about this, the unfortunate could phone a premium rate number -something which the government has now decreed should stop. The DWP will have to give out private local rate numbers - a victory for Margaret Hodge and her Public Accounts Committee.
Boxing Day brought an interesting exclusive in the Independent. Labour has decided that outsourcing public services is not necessarily a good thing. They've recognised that the contracts don't provide better competition or drive down prices because "what we have in this country now is an oligopoly of a few companies that are not competing effectively and are providing poor value for money for the taxpayer." Hallelujah! Yes, Labour started it, but if they've now seen the light we can only rejoice. Perhaps they'll also do something about the scam reported in the Guardian on Boxing Day. The GMB union is taking a case to court against a marketing company, PerDM, which apparently employs people on a fake self-employment basis and then pays them way below minimum wage.
It's not going to get any better, folks. The best we can hope for in 2014 is that there are more real jobs, and some of those desperate for work and a viable income will escape from the clutches of this appalling government.
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
A damp squib
A lot of people were looking forward to Iain Duncan Smith's appearance in front of the Work and Pensions Committee, believing that there would be an interrogation that would skewer him and expose his sins. Those people were always going to be disappointed. By all accounts he got more and more bad-tempered under questioning. When Glenda Jackson MP had a go at him he accused her of "conflating so many issues here, it's almost becoming risible". (Yes, I'm sure we were all amused.) Debbie Abrahams MP was accused of "moaning". What she raised has only been reported, as far as I can see, in her local paper, the Oldham Evening Chronicle. She has a whistle-blower, a JCP employee with 18 years experience, who told her about quotas for sanctions and how "claimants are being set up to fail to meet benefits criteria - without regard for justice or welfare". IDS's response? He is unaware of the claims. "I would like to see the evidence for it. He's making allegations about people who work very hard. I'd be prepared to meet him to discuss it but there is someone in charge of this they should meet first. If he's got an issue to raise I would want to know". Well done for trying, Ms Abrahams, but this is yet another lie from IDS.
As for those dodgy statistics - it wasn't his fault. Surprise, surprise. It was actually Grant Shapps' fault. Well, one story was, let's not talk about the others.
The main focus was on the progress, or lack of it, on Universal Credit. He admitted to a write-off of £40m on the IT so far, but, hey, what's £40m when you're IDS?
Among all the accounts in the press, the one in the Spectator is the most informative.
One suspects that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, would have given him a worse time and wound him up more spectacularly. The PAC might even have raised the matter of sanctions, and all the cruelty being perpetrated by the DWP. But in the end it wouldn't have changed anything.
As for those dodgy statistics - it wasn't his fault. Surprise, surprise. It was actually Grant Shapps' fault. Well, one story was, let's not talk about the others.
The main focus was on the progress, or lack of it, on Universal Credit. He admitted to a write-off of £40m on the IT so far, but, hey, what's £40m when you're IDS?
Among all the accounts in the press, the one in the Spectator is the most informative.
One suspects that Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, would have given him a worse time and wound him up more spectacularly. The PAC might even have raised the matter of sanctions, and all the cruelty being perpetrated by the DWP. But in the end it wouldn't have changed anything.
Thursday, 7 November 2013
It wasn't me, it was him
The Public Accounts Committee has published its report on Universal Credit. It's pretty damning. There's a comprehensive account in the Guardian. Since then, there has been a concerted attempt by Conservative MPs to place the blame squarely on Robert Devereux, the Permanent Secretary at the DWP and the accounting officer for the project.
The Times said this morning that Iain Duncan Smith had tried to get Tory members of the committee to blame Devereux. That's been denied. The report doesn't blame individuals, but Margaret Hodge said this morning that the responsibility was from the top down. Since then I've heard three different Tories blame the civil servants. Francis Maude was driven to explicitly exonerating IDS. He commissioned the review in 2012, says Maude, which identified the problems; and he described him as "visionary".
Whatever happened to ministerial accountability? Younger readers won't be aware that there was a time when the ministers took responsibility and resigned even when the disaster clearly wasn't their fault. Not now. But if Devereux does go, he will be free to speak. That might worry Duncan Smith.
Many people have asked why IDS is still in his job. Surely his track record should have got him reshuffled to the back benches ages ago. My feeling is that IDS is so hated, so much the focus of people's anger at the cruelty of the welfare "reforms", that it's better for Cameron to leave him in place and let him soak it all up than to put someone else in the firing line.
The Times said this morning that Iain Duncan Smith had tried to get Tory members of the committee to blame Devereux. That's been denied. The report doesn't blame individuals, but Margaret Hodge said this morning that the responsibility was from the top down. Since then I've heard three different Tories blame the civil servants. Francis Maude was driven to explicitly exonerating IDS. He commissioned the review in 2012, says Maude, which identified the problems; and he described him as "visionary".
Whatever happened to ministerial accountability? Younger readers won't be aware that there was a time when the ministers took responsibility and resigned even when the disaster clearly wasn't their fault. Not now. But if Devereux does go, he will be free to speak. That might worry Duncan Smith.
Many people have asked why IDS is still in his job. Surely his track record should have got him reshuffled to the back benches ages ago. My feeling is that IDS is so hated, so much the focus of people's anger at the cruelty of the welfare "reforms", that it's better for Cameron to leave him in place and let him soak it all up than to put someone else in the firing line.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
£1.375m for Emma
It's a story in today's Observer, but it's an irritating one.
The figures come from her husband, who said she got a total dividend of £1.25m in the year from April 2011, plus £250,000 from January this year. Okay, she didn't step down as Chair of A4e until March, so this is hardly a surprise. Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is outraged, justifiably. But the paper seems to forget that a big slice of A4's income doesn't come from welfare-to-work. There are plenty of other lucrative contracts.
And there's a worrying inaccuracy in the story. "She became a high-profile figure through reality TV programmes such as The Fairy Jobmother." Er ... no. She wasn't in that. It was Hayley Taylor, who got her big break as an A4e employee in Benefit Busters.
I've no objection, of course, to the Observer / Guardian keeping this in the public eye. But let's get it right.
The figures come from her husband, who said she got a total dividend of £1.25m in the year from April 2011, plus £250,000 from January this year. Okay, she didn't step down as Chair of A4e until March, so this is hardly a surprise. Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is outraged, justifiably. But the paper seems to forget that a big slice of A4's income doesn't come from welfare-to-work. There are plenty of other lucrative contracts.
And there's a worrying inaccuracy in the story. "She became a high-profile figure through reality TV programmes such as The Fairy Jobmother." Er ... no. She wasn't in that. It was Hayley Taylor, who got her big break as an A4e employee in Benefit Busters.
I've no objection, of course, to the Observer / Guardian keeping this in the public eye. But let's get it right.
Friday, 28 September 2012
Margaret Hodge interview
I missed it, but Margaret Hodge was on The Daily Politics today talking about the PAC report. You can watch it here. She had to battle against poor interviewing, but she made her points. There is "still a cloud hanging over A4e". Providers are still claiming money for outcomes they had nothing to do with, jobs or self-employment already set up before referral. The interviewer, Carole Walker, kept trying to push the line that this was in Labour's time, but Hodge insisted it was under the current contracts. And, she said, "You don't pay a company if they have not done the work."
She was also exercised about the fact that no figures have been released. How can we know how well A4e or anyone else is doing if, 15 months in, there is still a refusal by the DWP to tell us the stats?
That's the crux of it at the moment. The documents leaked to Channel 4 News showed that, with the first year of the WP not yet completed, A4e's outcome figures were dire. That first year is well and truly over now, but figures promised in the "Autumn" are still not out, and rumour has it that they won't be released until the end of November (which is winter on my calendar). What are they hiding?
She was also exercised about the fact that no figures have been released. How can we know how well A4e or anyone else is doing if, 15 months in, there is still a refusal by the DWP to tell us the stats?
That's the crux of it at the moment. The documents leaked to Channel 4 News showed that, with the first year of the WP not yet completed, A4e's outcome figures were dire. That first year is well and truly over now, but figures promised in the "Autumn" are still not out, and rumour has it that they won't be released until the end of November (which is winter on my calendar). What are they hiding?
The PAC's report
The Public Accounts Committee has published its report into the Work Programme, and there's a lot of disapproval in it of the way the DWP fails to oversee and manage its contractors properly. The Press Association has the basic press release. In the case of A4e, they say, the DWP didn't obtain the 2009 internal audit report which showed alleged fraud and malpractice. The subsequent enquiry into A4e resulted in one cancelled contract but did not address the wider question of whether A4e was a fit and proper company to have any such contracts. If it hadn't been for whistle blowers, says committee chair Margaret Hodge, a range of issues would not have been addressed at all.
As we reported last night, the report does not include the evidence of those whistle blowers, who asked for it to be pulled at the last minute. We don't know why, but we can guess. The Independent publishes some of Eddie Hutchinson's evidence which was leaked after the committee meeting. In another article on the report itself, the Independent reminds us that one of those whistle blowers "who had worked at A4e told how she had been asked to 'fix' files to suggest that people had successfully found work". The DWP repeats the mantra that it all happened under Labour's programmes and couldn't happen now. She also says the the enquiry into A4e is on-going.
The BBC news website has an unusually long piece. It includes Hodge's concern that "The design of the programme still allows for the possibility of providers being paid for finding work for people who found the jobs on their own". It also includes an attack by Iain Duncan Smith; he had asked senior Labour figures, including Hodge, "to reveal advice they received about fraud during their time in office". Some hadn't even replied. Like the Independent, the BBC reports, though briefly, Andrew Dutton's response. They have strengthened their controls, etc., and "we are now openly calling on MPs, business leaders and employers to come and see for themselves the work we are doing". Interestingly, the BBC uses as a graphic an old clip from A4e's website which still describes it as a "social purpose company".
For the whole of Dutton's response see the WallStreetonline site. This begins with the central message that A4e wants to get across: "A4e is a different company from the one it was two years ago". Many of us are yet to be convinced.
As we reported last night, the report does not include the evidence of those whistle blowers, who asked for it to be pulled at the last minute. We don't know why, but we can guess. The Independent publishes some of Eddie Hutchinson's evidence which was leaked after the committee meeting. In another article on the report itself, the Independent reminds us that one of those whistle blowers "who had worked at A4e told how she had been asked to 'fix' files to suggest that people had successfully found work". The DWP repeats the mantra that it all happened under Labour's programmes and couldn't happen now. She also says the the enquiry into A4e is on-going.
The BBC news website has an unusually long piece. It includes Hodge's concern that "The design of the programme still allows for the possibility of providers being paid for finding work for people who found the jobs on their own". It also includes an attack by Iain Duncan Smith; he had asked senior Labour figures, including Hodge, "to reveal advice they received about fraud during their time in office". Some hadn't even replied. Like the Independent, the BBC reports, though briefly, Andrew Dutton's response. They have strengthened their controls, etc., and "we are now openly calling on MPs, business leaders and employers to come and see for themselves the work we are doing". Interestingly, the BBC uses as a graphic an old clip from A4e's website which still describes it as a "social purpose company".
For the whole of Dutton's response see the WallStreetonline site. This begins with the central message that A4e wants to get across: "A4e is a different company from the one it was two years ago". Many of us are yet to be convinced.
Friday, 20 July 2012
Openness
Two bits of news which could, loosely, come under the heading of openness.
The Guardian reports more "chaos" around an outsourcing company which could have a bearing on the behaviour of companies like A4e. The story is about Atos and its fitness-for-work tests. I hadn't realised that last year claimants were given the right to record their assessments so that they could ensure that their details were correctly registered. Thinking to save on the costs of all those appeals, the government told Atos to equip themselves with recorders. The firm has complied by buying just 11 (that's eleven). And most of those are broken. Chris Grayling thinks that's okay. However, if it's officially permitted (if very difficult) to record Atos assessments, maybe that opens the door to recording encounters with other companies which can have a very damaging impact on clients' lives.
The Exaro site reports that the Public Accounts Committee is demanding greater openness in outsourced public services contracts. They want "all data" disclosing, and for the companies (and charities) to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. At the moment all the stuff we should know is covered by "commercial confidentiality". The PAC's Chair, Margaret Hodge, cites the current G4S fiasco, and the fact that we don't know what penalty clauses were in the contract. While some MPs and civil servants like the idea, I'm doubtful whether this will get anywhere. There are simply too many vested interests.
The Guardian reports more "chaos" around an outsourcing company which could have a bearing on the behaviour of companies like A4e. The story is about Atos and its fitness-for-work tests. I hadn't realised that last year claimants were given the right to record their assessments so that they could ensure that their details were correctly registered. Thinking to save on the costs of all those appeals, the government told Atos to equip themselves with recorders. The firm has complied by buying just 11 (that's eleven). And most of those are broken. Chris Grayling thinks that's okay. However, if it's officially permitted (if very difficult) to record Atos assessments, maybe that opens the door to recording encounters with other companies which can have a very damaging impact on clients' lives.
The Exaro site reports that the Public Accounts Committee is demanding greater openness in outsourced public services contracts. They want "all data" disclosing, and for the companies (and charities) to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. At the moment all the stuff we should know is covered by "commercial confidentiality". The PAC's Chair, Margaret Hodge, cites the current G4S fiasco, and the fact that we don't know what penalty clauses were in the contract. While some MPs and civil servants like the idea, I'm doubtful whether this will get anywhere. There are simply too many vested interests.
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Just 3.5 per cent
Channel 4 News has just run an item revealing that A4e has managed only 3.5% job outcomes lasting 13 weeks or more.
They've got hold of figures which show that A4e are "improving the lives of very few". Since June 2011 only 18% of starters got work, and only 3.5% got "sustained" work, i.e. lasting 13 weeks. Margaret Hodge said it was "deeply depressing" - "an abysmal performance". Philip Hammond, a correspondent to this blog who has been on the programme for 6 months, said in an interview that it did not offer real support and called the WP a scam.
The reporter pointed out that in Newham, East London, A4e's performance of 3% was worse than that of the local authority's own scheme.
Ian Mulheirn of the Social Market Foundation says that the figures are worse than the DWP's forecast for no intervention at all. The DWP wouldn't comment, except to say that it would be "ludicrous" to talk about the figures now. A4e doesn't dispute the figures but wouldn't be interviewed either.
The item ended with the comment that although A4e is falling way below minimum standards it's unlikely that they will lose their contracts. It's critical to know how well or badly the other providers are doing.
They've got hold of figures which show that A4e are "improving the lives of very few". Since June 2011 only 18% of starters got work, and only 3.5% got "sustained" work, i.e. lasting 13 weeks. Margaret Hodge said it was "deeply depressing" - "an abysmal performance". Philip Hammond, a correspondent to this blog who has been on the programme for 6 months, said in an interview that it did not offer real support and called the WP a scam.
The reporter pointed out that in Newham, East London, A4e's performance of 3% was worse than that of the local authority's own scheme.
Ian Mulheirn of the Social Market Foundation says that the figures are worse than the DWP's forecast for no intervention at all. The DWP wouldn't comment, except to say that it would be "ludicrous" to talk about the figures now. A4e doesn't dispute the figures but wouldn't be interviewed either.
The item ended with the comment that although A4e is falling way below minimum standards it's unlikely that they will lose their contracts. It's critical to know how well or badly the other providers are doing.
Sunday, 3 June 2012
Morale at an all-time low
It may be a holiday weekend, but for many A4e staff it's a gloomy one. Some left work on Friday in the knowledge that the bonuses they expected to be paid this month have been cancelled. Managers have been receiving up to 20% of their pay as financial performance bonuses for the previous year. Last year's would have included 6 months of dual WP / FND work, and since FND was described by one employee as a "cash cow", the cancellation of the bonuses represents a significant loss. They've also been told that anyone earning £26k pa or more will not be getting a pay increase. Those earning less than £26k will get a 1% rise. This comes on top of the news that Emma Harrison took £8.6 million out of the company last year.
Many staff report that they are unhappy for other reasons. They were supposed to be dealing with caseloads of no more than 80, but some have upwards of 200 clients, so the amount of "tailored support" they can give is limited. Tensions are high in some offices. The system of referring people for "sanctions" (taking away their income) results in mistakes, and staff are having to confront some very angry clients.
Staff turnover has always been high in A4e, and some say that it is only limited now by the lack of opportunity to move elsewhere. But morale is reported to be at an all-time low.
(Don't bother posting comments attacking staff - they won't be published.)
This comes at a time when, as the Telegraph reports, the DWP has told Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that it won't be publishing details of the 115 cases of potential fraud which don't involve A4e. The "public interest" argument isn't strong enough, they say.
Many staff report that they are unhappy for other reasons. They were supposed to be dealing with caseloads of no more than 80, but some have upwards of 200 clients, so the amount of "tailored support" they can give is limited. Tensions are high in some offices. The system of referring people for "sanctions" (taking away their income) results in mistakes, and staff are having to confront some very angry clients.
Staff turnover has always been high in A4e, and some say that it is only limited now by the lack of opportunity to move elsewhere. But morale is reported to be at an all-time low.
(Don't bother posting comments attacking staff - they won't be published.)
This comes at a time when, as the Telegraph reports, the DWP has told Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that it won't be publishing details of the 115 cases of potential fraud which don't involve A4e. The "public interest" argument isn't strong enough, they say.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
That PAC meeting
You can read the transcript of the Public Accounts Committee meeting on Tuesday here. Not the bit that was held in secret. But we did learn that there was another witness besides Eddie Hutchinson whose evidence was heard in private. She was a whistle-blower who was complaining about what had happened. For those who don't want to plough through the entire piece I have made notes below. The characters involved are, on the committee, Margaret Hodge, Fiona Mctaggart, Austin Mitchell, Matthew Hancock and Richard Bacon and, as witnesses, Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions, and Alan Cave, Delivery Director, Department for Work and Pensions, along with Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office.
MH not happy with RD. She sent him the A4e internal report and some emails. He said there wasn't enough specific information in them to do a proper investigation. She says he should have come back to her for that info. He says that Grayling announced his enquiry. She persists, he is infuriating. What about the internal report? He accepted A4e's word that of the 9 cases only 3 were actually fraud, and they related to one person. But they are going to investigate all the cases. He says they can't investigate where a company has gone out of business. R Bacon points out that you can. MH asks about the audit Grayling asked for. RD says that it won't be published. "This is a whole lot of good chaps-I understand that the Chairman is an ex-Permanent Secretary, whom, no doubt, you have conversations with. It is a big company with an expensive PR machine, which we have seen in operation over the past few weeks. They are bound to be good citizens, so we don’t need to have open and transparent oversight of them." - MH. RD gives the official answer about possible litigation. Lot of discussion with committee members about this. RD says all the evidence is that A4e is not fraudulent. Hillier keen to link value for money to the service her constituents are getting. RD says the WP is not about the service - if they don't provide the service they won't get paid. FM wants the evidence that A4e " has in place a system for staff to report improper behaviour or performance management systems that avoid perverse incentives".
MH not happy with RD. She sent him the A4e internal report and some emails. He said there wasn't enough specific information in them to do a proper investigation. She says he should have come back to her for that info. He says that Grayling announced his enquiry. She persists, he is infuriating. What about the internal report? He accepted A4e's word that of the 9 cases only 3 were actually fraud, and they related to one person. But they are going to investigate all the cases. He says they can't investigate where a company has gone out of business. R Bacon points out that you can. MH asks about the audit Grayling asked for. RD says that it won't be published. "This is a whole lot of good chaps-I understand that the Chairman is an ex-Permanent Secretary, whom, no doubt, you have conversations with. It is a big company with an expensive PR machine, which we have seen in operation over the past few weeks. They are bound to be good citizens, so we don’t need to have open and transparent oversight of them." - MH. RD gives the official answer about possible litigation. Lot of discussion with committee members about this. RD says all the evidence is that A4e is not fraudulent. Hillier keen to link value for money to the service her constituents are getting. RD says the WP is not about the service - if they don't provide the service they won't get paid. FM wants the evidence that A4e " has in place a system for staff to report improper behaviour or performance management systems that avoid perverse incentives".
AM: "You have just sat through a long closed session, which produced some fairly damning indictments of both the structures and the practices in A4e and Working Links and which gave several indications of possible fraud. Some evidence has been submitted to us as well-to the Chair-by the people who gave evidence in that closed session. Will those allegations be investigated?" He is keen to talk about what they do to avoid fraud - mentions Private Eye, about which RD is sarcastic. He describes controls now in place to ensure claims are correct. MH: "So is A4e fit and proper to undertake the Work Programme ?" RD says yes.
RD goes through all the checking process in detail. Matthew Hancock asks him the questions which allow him to show how watertight the WP is. Hodge raises issue of bonuses. RD says it's not an incentive to fraud because they can't now commit fraud. Hodge describes the case of a woman who already had a job lined up but was persuaded to sign the forms for A4e in return for £50 for herself. She thinks this is wrong because A4e did nothing for the money. RD says the £50 was A4e's and it's within the rules. Some argument about this. How can you measure what help was given? They get on to complaints and argue about that.
Hillier wants a single hotline for complaints and whistleblowers. RD says he wants people to go to the provider first then the JC. FM says: "The reason that I first wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General about how A4e were behaving was that there was no process where the concerns of my constituents, who were referred to A4e, could properly be dealt with. I just got brush-off letters and there was no process where I could advocate on their behalf. Now that was not always about fraud, but there is a lack of a process." RD bats that aside.
Cave admits that they didn't ask for the 2009 report and should have done. Conversation shows that there were two earlier witnesses, not just Hutchinson. He later admits that he doesn't know who the other 4 shareholders of A4e are. FM presses the point about controls needing to be not just financial. She returns to this. "What struck me from my contact with people is that a large proportion of those customers are very often not reluctant, but are very keen on getting into work, very keen that the public’s money is properly spent and feel that what they see is not spending the public’s money properly." (Hancock again feeds RD nice questions.) RM: "We keep hearing from people that they do not know how they can complain and that they have bullying managers who prevent complaints. I accept that you have not been able to investigate all these cases, but one of the things that I have learned as an MP is that while you get green ink complainers, when you get the same complaint from all ends of the constituency, there is something that you should be alert to, and one of the things that I am very struck by is the number of people who have worked for these companies and say that bullying management means that there isn’t a way in which they feel that they can safely make complaints when they are asked to do things. We have had evidence from people who have been asked to do things that include making up evidence and telling lies. We have not been able to test that evidence in a court of law. Nevertheless, it is quite perturbing that people feel that that is what they have been asked to do and that there is no way they can whistleblow about it." She refers to a previous witness: "She was talking about a different programme, but it was in this period, and therefore she did not know how to complain. While you are right that the programme that she was asked to lie about was not the Work Programme , if she had known of a safe way of passing it up, that would have equally applied to people who worked on other programmes at that time in that company."
Mitchell: " I think Mr Devereux has said that one of these companies could go bankrupt. That is about equivalent to the Governor of the Bank of England saying moral hazard could discipline the banks because they might go bankrupt, too. They are already too big to fail. It is so unlikely. Here is a new category of capitalism that was set up to milk the state. It is not facing the competition of the market; it’s got a safe contract, which just goes on, so the threat of bankruptcy is really hypothetical."
Argument about what "systemic" means. Then Hodge: " Finally, a public sector contract to build houses, hospitals or schools is pretty straightforward. I am thinking of payment by results-the school is there-and you can keep a little bit of money back to make sure that if anything has gone wrong, you can get it back. Would you accept that a contract that provides human services is qualitatively different? It will work only if you build trust. I think that that is the key thing-there has to be trust in the system. It is partly about the outcome but also about-this is the Fiona point, really-how well the customers are treated. That has to be part of the mix in these sorts of contracts. So it is about the how as well as the how much-I hope that you accept that. If I put it to you that I think that trust has broken down here, in particular in relation to A4e, how can you rebuild it?" Just stonewalling from RD, helped by Hancock.
Several points stand out for me. There is Devereux's determination that anything before the Work Programme doesn't really matter; and the WP is fraud-proof. Hodge and Mctaggart in particular want to focus on the service customers get, but Devereux thinks that's irrelevant because the companies only get paid if they deliver a service which gets results.
It's frustrating to read, but not as frustrating as it must have been for the committee members.
Meanwhile, Chris Grayling is assuring us that the Work Programme is doing splendidly. In the Express he says that 100,000 people have found work through it.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Grayling virtually calls Hutchinson a liar
There is no doubt whatever over which side Chris Grayling is on. On Channel 4 News tonight he said that there are "serious question marks about how substantial and how correct the evidence ... is; serious potential misunderstandings." The evidence, of course, is that which Eddie Hutchinson gave to the Public Accounts Committee about what he'd found at A4e. But Grayling insists, "We haven't found fraud at A4e," after the investigation by Ernst & Young. And now he's attacking the PAC, accusing them of not disclosing this evidence until the meeting, when it should have gone to those conducting the audit for the DWP. Says Channel 4 News, "Mr Duncan Smith's letter continued: 'I can only reach the conclusion that the committee has held back details from the DWP in order to generate media coverage.'"
Margaret Hodge says that she's very upset about the leak to the Telegraph and will launch an enquiry. The initial Telegraph story suggested that the paper had simply spoken to someone who was there at the meeting. The subsequent publication of the document containing his evidence must have a similar source; it's annotated, as if it's one of those copies handed out to committee members.
With Grayling's colours pinned firmly to the mast, Hutchinson is now being portrayed as a liar. Perhaps A4e will try to paint him as an embitterd ex-employee who failed in his job. How can the rest of us know who's right? There's one point which might clarify matters. Hutchinson didn't join A4e until 2010. It was a year before that when A4e compiled its own internal report which showed serious fraud and potential fraud. So was that seriously incorrect as well?
If you get all your news from the BBC you wouldn't know anything about this. As usual, they are pretending it hasn't happened.
Margaret Hodge says that she's very upset about the leak to the Telegraph and will launch an enquiry. The initial Telegraph story suggested that the paper had simply spoken to someone who was there at the meeting. The subsequent publication of the document containing his evidence must have a similar source; it's annotated, as if it's one of those copies handed out to committee members.
With Grayling's colours pinned firmly to the mast, Hutchinson is now being portrayed as a liar. Perhaps A4e will try to paint him as an embitterd ex-employee who failed in his job. How can the rest of us know who's right? There's one point which might clarify matters. Hutchinson didn't join A4e until 2010. It was a year before that when A4e compiled its own internal report which showed serious fraud and potential fraud. So was that seriously incorrect as well?
If you get all your news from the BBC you wouldn't know anything about this. As usual, they are pretending it hasn't happened.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
What kind of investigation?
There's plenty of coverage of the removal of one of A4e's contracts today, but most of it just repeats the press release. We saw at Prime Minister's Questions how the government wants to spin the NAO report; Cameron focussed on how quickly the Work Programme had been got up and running. It's left to the Guardian and the Yorkshire Post to highlight a significant omission.
You remember that leaked internal A4e report which showed how much probable and potential fraud was going on? It was important enough for the BBC to break its vow of silence on the A4e issue. But it wasn't, apparently, important enough for the DWP to want to look at it. They didn't ask for it. Margaret Hodge isn't happy about that, naturally, and wants a more complete investigation. It raises the question of what kind of investigation the DWP thought it was conducting. The phrases "whitewash" and "damage limitation" spring to mind.
Another major point in the National Audit Office report is reported in the Guardian. "... allegations against A4e represented just under 10% of cases where fraud was substantiated. Over 40 cases occurred in other back-to-work companies, representing total losses since 2006 of a quarter of a million pounds. Out of a total of 126 reported cases of potential fraud the DWP concluded that there was no case to answer in 75 cases. Of the remaining cases, the NAO report said, '24 were of false representation [fraud], 22 of non-compliance' and five were still under investigation. The total losses to fraud since 2006 averaged £129,000 a year, which it described as a 'small' loss in comparison to a total expenditure of £829m on employment schemes in 2011-2012 alone."
An unexpected advert on Twitter from Paul Lewis, who is one of the BBC's financial experts.
You remember that leaked internal A4e report which showed how much probable and potential fraud was going on? It was important enough for the BBC to break its vow of silence on the A4e issue. But it wasn't, apparently, important enough for the DWP to want to look at it. They didn't ask for it. Margaret Hodge isn't happy about that, naturally, and wants a more complete investigation. It raises the question of what kind of investigation the DWP thought it was conducting. The phrases "whitewash" and "damage limitation" spring to mind.
Another major point in the National Audit Office report is reported in the Guardian. "... allegations against A4e represented just under 10% of cases where fraud was substantiated. Over 40 cases occurred in other back-to-work companies, representing total losses since 2006 of a quarter of a million pounds. Out of a total of 126 reported cases of potential fraud the DWP concluded that there was no case to answer in 75 cases. Of the remaining cases, the NAO report said, '24 were of false representation [fraud], 22 of non-compliance' and five were still under investigation. The total losses to fraud since 2006 averaged £129,000 a year, which it described as a 'small' loss in comparison to a total expenditure of £829m on employment schemes in 2011-2012 alone."
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
Is that it?
It's the best possible outcome for A4e. We all knew that there was no chance of an investigation finding "systemic fraud" in the company. But to have exonerated them completely would have been a mite suspicious. So the DWP has taken away one small contract; one which A4e says employed just 5 people and made up just 0.5% of the company's revenues (Guardian) and where fraud has been admitted. A4e bosses sound suitably contrite but vindicated.
The media have generally been content to report rather than comment. Clearly we are meant to see this as drawing a line. Whatever happens now, in Slough for instance, can be seen as an isolated incident and proof that the company has got its act together by reporting it to the police in the first place. The two prison education contracts which had been put on hold can now get the go-ahead. Business as usual. Labour's Liam Byrne has blustered ineffectually. But what about all those dossiers which MPs and journalists were compiling? Margaret Hodge MP and Fiona Mactaggart MP, members of the Public Accounts Committee, said that they'd received hundreds of complaints. Journalists were keen to hear from whistle-blowers, and I know of at least one TV producer anxious to get evidence. Now, presumably, there's no story. Move on.
But that will be a disservice to all those who have voiced their anger at their experiences. We need to maintain our watch on this company.
The media have generally been content to report rather than comment. Clearly we are meant to see this as drawing a line. Whatever happens now, in Slough for instance, can be seen as an isolated incident and proof that the company has got its act together by reporting it to the police in the first place. The two prison education contracts which had been put on hold can now get the go-ahead. Business as usual. Labour's Liam Byrne has blustered ineffectually. But what about all those dossiers which MPs and journalists were compiling? Margaret Hodge MP and Fiona Mactaggart MP, members of the Public Accounts Committee, said that they'd received hundreds of complaints. Journalists were keen to hear from whistle-blowers, and I know of at least one TV producer anxious to get evidence. Now, presumably, there's no story. Move on.
But that will be a disservice to all those who have voiced their anger at their experiences. We need to maintain our watch on this company.
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Timeline
The year so far:
- 18 Jan The Telegraph publishes details of A4e's accounts. This blog does the sums and highlights the extraordinary amount of money paid to Emma Harrison. This is taken up by Private Eye.
- 2 Feb Emma Harrison is guest of the day on the Daily Politics - no hard questions are asked.
- 5 Feb Emma Harrison is on Radio 5 Live
- 8 Feb The Public Accounts Committee attacks A4e, targeting the money paid to Harrison and the poor results. This is reported in the Guardian.
- 10 Feb The Daily Mail picks up the story and launches a devastating attack.
- 11 Feb The rest of the media take up the story
- 17 Feb The Mail has another go at Harrison
- 18 Feb Reports of fraud investigation in A4e Slough
- 19 Feb Margaret Hodge MP calls for suspension of all A4e's contracts
- 21 Feb Fiona Mactaggrart MP starts highlighting reports of fraudulent practice in A4e
- 23 Feb Emma Harrison steps aside as government's "family champion".
- 24 Feb Emma Harrison steps down as Chair of A4e (but keeps her stake in the company).
- 9 Mar DWP announces "independent audit of all our commercial relationships with A4e"
- 10 Mar A4e gets two new prison education contracts
- 22 Mar Paul Mason reveals a leaked A4e report of 2009 which shows they were aware of widespread fraud.
- 3 Apr A4e is said to be the preferred bidder for the EHRC helpline contract. This is denied.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Reputations
The Daily Mail has "updated" its article about A4e being the preferred bidder for the EHRC helpline contract. The amendment seems to consist of the insertion of: "A Home Office spokesman said: ‘A4e have no contracts with the Home Office or its executive agencies. The procurement process for the Equality Advisory and Support service is ongoing and A4e have not been made the preferred bidder for this contract.’" So the Home Office is denying the whole story. It will be interesting to see what happens in the end.
At the same time a Labour MP, Bill Esterson, has used his own website to call A4e "a Victorian workhouse scam". His constituent, 50-year-old Philip Hammond, has been with A4e for 14 months. He says: "A4e is bullying people at a time when they need support. They run a campaign of intimidation and undermine any self confidence you may have in yourself." He is particularly incensed by the 50-page contract people have to sign which gives A4e the right to monitor them for two years. He regards this as forcing people to sign away their human rights. The MP supports all this.
Okay, this is politics, and somewhat over the top. But an article in the Telegraph yesterday shows that the government is squirming about the whole subject of fraud in the W2W field. Margaret Hodge, chair of the PAC, is pursuing the fact that Cameron had announced that there had been 125 cases of "alleged wrongdoing". Only 11 of those related to A4e. She wants the details of the others disclosed, and a Tory MP has supported her. Chris Grayling has said that most of the 125 cases were not really fraud, but a few of them were down to "employee malpractice". The DWP is still deciding whether to publish the details. Meanwhile, reports the Telegraph, "the National Audit Office is conducting an internal inquiry into the DWP’s approach to investigating allegations of fraud across providers in the back-to-work sector. The findings of that inquiry will feed into a PAC evidence session on May 23."
At the same time a Labour MP, Bill Esterson, has used his own website to call A4e "a Victorian workhouse scam". His constituent, 50-year-old Philip Hammond, has been with A4e for 14 months. He says: "A4e is bullying people at a time when they need support. They run a campaign of intimidation and undermine any self confidence you may have in yourself." He is particularly incensed by the 50-page contract people have to sign which gives A4e the right to monitor them for two years. He regards this as forcing people to sign away their human rights. The MP supports all this.
Okay, this is politics, and somewhat over the top. But an article in the Telegraph yesterday shows that the government is squirming about the whole subject of fraud in the W2W field. Margaret Hodge, chair of the PAC, is pursuing the fact that Cameron had announced that there had been 125 cases of "alleged wrongdoing". Only 11 of those related to A4e. She wants the details of the others disclosed, and a Tory MP has supported her. Chris Grayling has said that most of the 125 cases were not really fraud, but a few of them were down to "employee malpractice". The DWP is still deciding whether to publish the details. Meanwhile, reports the Telegraph, "the National Audit Office is conducting an internal inquiry into the DWP’s approach to investigating allegations of fraud across providers in the back-to-work sector. The findings of that inquiry will feed into a PAC evidence session on May 23."
It's against this background that A4e's new PR people are trying to rehabilitate the company's reputation. I suspect it won't be about planting more of the good news stories in the local press. George Bridges and his colleagues from Quiller Consultants are more likely to be lobbying politicians. Disclosures of wrongdoing by other companies are helpful.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
And yet more contracts
Thanks to the Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats for this story. Richmond upon Thames council, like a lot of other local authorities, funded the Council for Voluntary Service (CVS) to support and train people in small, local voluntary organisations and charities. The CVS branches usually consist of paid professionals helped by volunteers. They are probably not experienced in drawing up bids for contracts to do the work. So when Richmond Council, led by Conservative peer Lord True, decided to put the work out to contract for £85,000 the CVS lost - to the Foundation for Social Improvement (FSI). Not A4e - or not quite. The FSI is the creation of Emma Harrison and has received £1m from A4e. Harrison is Chair of the Trustees (although the piece on the website about her doesn't mention A4e) and two other A4e directors, Jo Blundell and Andrew Dutton, are also trustees. It's a registered charity, and it was originally about helping small charities to raise funds. Now it is obviously using the bid-writing skills of A4e; it is based at A4e's Westminster offices, so it would be silly not to. As Lib Dem leader on the council, Stephen Knight, says: "It beggars belief that Richmond council is intent on handing a contract to the A4e group of organisations, while the government and police are investigating evidence of widespread fraud and mismanagement. Local residents will be shocked that the Tories are intent of pulling funding from the local Council for Voluntary Service and instead handing a contract to a scandal-hit organisation based in Westminster."
There's an interesting piece on the Morning Star website (scroll down) headed "A4E isn't always terrible. Sometimes it is just mediocre." A4e was hired to train 30,000 childminders in 2004, and the writer has got hold of an evaluation of the contract carried out by consultants PriceWaterhouseCoopers. It's not good. In fact, it's pretty grim.
Most of the newspapers have reported the story we took from Exaro yesterday about A4e being the preferred bidder for another contract, to run the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's helpline. The Daily Mail takes the opportunity to re-run its previous graphics on A4e, but also quotes Margaret Hodge as saying: "This belies common sense. There are so many question marks about this company’s competence and integrity that I can’t believe any government department is thinking of signing another contract with them. The Home Office should hold off from making any decision until the investigations have been completed."
PS. I read the latest Private Eye after posting the first paragraph above. They have the story; but they also show that A4e used the FSI to help win the Work Programme contracts - the "bid candy" which the charities claim they became for the prime providers. The Eye has also set its sights on another prime, Working Links, recalling a leaked "compliance visit" report last year which showed that Working Links in Liverpool had made 85 claims for outcomes which it was not entitled to.
There's an interesting piece on the Morning Star website (scroll down) headed "A4E isn't always terrible. Sometimes it is just mediocre." A4e was hired to train 30,000 childminders in 2004, and the writer has got hold of an evaluation of the contract carried out by consultants PriceWaterhouseCoopers. It's not good. In fact, it's pretty grim.
Most of the newspapers have reported the story we took from Exaro yesterday about A4e being the preferred bidder for another contract, to run the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's helpline. The Daily Mail takes the opportunity to re-run its previous graphics on A4e, but also quotes Margaret Hodge as saying: "This belies common sense. There are so many question marks about this company’s competence and integrity that I can’t believe any government department is thinking of signing another contract with them. The Home Office should hold off from making any decision until the investigations have been completed."
PS. I read the latest Private Eye after posting the first paragraph above. They have the story; but they also show that A4e used the FSI to help win the Work Programme contracts - the "bid candy" which the charities claim they became for the prime providers. The Eye has also set its sights on another prime, Working Links, recalling a leaked "compliance visit" report last year which showed that Working Links in Liverpool had made 85 claims for outcomes which it was not entitled to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)