The government is in a desperate hurry to sell off whatever it can of the remaining shreds of the public sector. Yesterday it announced the winning bidders for the Transforming Rehabilitation contracts, that hugely dangerous outsourcing of probation services. As we can see from the Guardian's report on this, two companies get more than half the business. Sodexo gets six areas, Interserve five; of the rest of the 21 areas, Working Links gets three and Ingeus two. All have signed up charities to do the work. Between them they will handle more than half of the probation service work, with supposedly medium and low risk offenders. Their profits will be on a payment by results basis, albeit under a more complicated system than that of the Work Programme. G4S and Serco had to withdraw their bids because they are still under investigation for fraud. A4e, we understand, also withdrew from the process.
It's bad enough that such we have to watch this vital work flogged off for private profit. Worse is the fact that the companies' profits have been insured against a new government pulling the plug on these contracts. They are guaranteed their expected profits for 10 years! So it would be ruinously expensive to cancel them.
We also heard yesterday of the company replacing Atos in the WCA contracts. It's Maximus, an American company with as dreadful a record in the US as G4S and Serco have here. For details, look at this piece on the Disability News Service site. We can't know the financial arrangements that brought Maximus into this, but we should.
We learn from the Guardian that the government is pressing ahead with another disturbing outsourcing scheme; that of child protection services, currently the responsibility of local councils. A lot of people are not aware that private companies already run children's homes, looking after the most vulnerable children for profit. Now the government wants to take child protection out of the councils' hands altogether. It might be thought that, given the stream of news recently of councils' failings in this area, it couldn't be any worse. But councils are accountable for what they do. Private companies just want to make a profit.
You will have read today that the government has considered cutting ESA to only pennies above JSA level. It denies that it's actually going to do it, and the cries of protest will probably stop it this side of an election.
Showing posts with label Interserve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interserve. Show all posts
Thursday, 30 October 2014
Everything must go
Labels:
A4e,
Atos,
child protection,
ESA,
Guardian,
Ingeus,
Interserve,
Maximus,
Sodexo,
Transforming Rehabilitation,
Working Links
Tuesday, 2 September 2014
Proud to work?
The
DWP Press Office has been infamous for a long time. It's
staffed by civil servants who are supposed to adhere to the Civil
Service Code, which says that they should have "integrity,
honesty, objectivity and impartiality". But perhaps
they're working under the direction of the DWP's Director of
Communications, Richard Caseby, who appears to have no such scruples (he's a former managing editor of the Sun). Back in January the Press Office put out a press release referring to "welfare hand-outs", a term the Daily Mail obligingly repeated. Then last week came this:
There was no pretence that this was anything other than straight-forward propaganda. Objective and impartial it was most certainly not. But I bet the intern (unpaid?) who gets to do the graphics has fun.
Today they attempted a rather different Twitter campaign, one which the Press Office didn't invent but which has decidedly sinister overtones. It's called "Proud to Work", and it seems to be the creation of the ERSA, the work programme providers' trade body - but clearly they are all working together with this. The DWP re-tweeted the highly dubious statement that the "Work Programme will deliver £18bn to economy". Immediately afterwards came re-tweets of stuff from Interserve, A4e and Working Links (not on this screen capture).
What I find most disturbing about this is the "proud to work" tag. It's subtle. It suggests that those who are not working are not proud, have no pride. It suggests that unemployment is voluntary, the result of lack of self-respect. Perhaps it suggests other things to you.
Is there anything that can be done about the DWP Press Office? Not at this stage in the parliament, I think. There doesn't seem to be any mechanism for opposition MPs to complain about it effectively. What it proves, however, very clearly, is that this government, and Iain Duncan Smith in particular, work closely with the right-wing press to spread lies and damaging propaganda. If they win in 2015, it will only get worse.
There was no pretence that this was anything other than straight-forward propaganda. Objective and impartial it was most certainly not. But I bet the intern (unpaid?) who gets to do the graphics has fun.
Today they attempted a rather different Twitter campaign, one which the Press Office didn't invent but which has decidedly sinister overtones. It's called "Proud to Work", and it seems to be the creation of the ERSA, the work programme providers' trade body - but clearly they are all working together with this. The DWP re-tweeted the highly dubious statement that the "Work Programme will deliver £18bn to economy". Immediately afterwards came re-tweets of stuff from Interserve, A4e and Working Links (not on this screen capture).
What I find most disturbing about this is the "proud to work" tag. It's subtle. It suggests that those who are not working are not proud, have no pride. It suggests that unemployment is voluntary, the result of lack of self-respect. Perhaps it suggests other things to you.
Is there anything that can be done about the DWP Press Office? Not at this stage in the parliament, I think. There doesn't seem to be any mechanism for opposition MPs to complain about it effectively. What it proves, however, very clearly, is that this government, and Iain Duncan Smith in particular, work closely with the right-wing press to spread lies and damaging propaganda. If they win in 2015, it will only get worse.
Labels:
A4e,
Civil Service Code,
Daily Mail,
DWP Press Office,
ERSA,
Iain Duncan Smith,
Interserve,
Twitter,
Work Programme,
Working Links
Wednesday, 30 April 2014
CWP contractors - the full list
Thanks to a site called TWPSolutions, we have the full list of Community Work Placements providers, after the Financial Times gave us 4 of them.
There are 18 regions. Of these, G4S have 6; Seetec 5; Pertemps and Interserve 2 each; and Learn Direct, Working Links and Rehab one each.
Did A4e put in a bid? It would be very unusual if they didn't, and this must be a major blow for them. All that's left in the pipeline are the Transforming Rehabilitation contracts, and the government wants to get on with them before the election, despite Labour's pleas to postpone the decision.
There are 18 regions. Of these, G4S have 6; Seetec 5; Pertemps and Interserve 2 each; and Learn Direct, Working Links and Rehab one each.
Did A4e put in a bid? It would be very unusual if they didn't, and this must be a major blow for them. All that's left in the pipeline are the Transforming Rehabilitation contracts, and the government wants to get on with them before the election, despite Labour's pleas to postpone the decision.
Labels:
A4e,
Community Work Placements,
CWP,
G4S,
Interserve,
Learn Direct,
Pertemps,
Rehab,
Seetec,
Working Links
Monday, 28 April 2014
Help to Work - at least for G4S
At last, we know four of the companies which have won the contracts to deliver the inappropriately named "Help to Work" programme. The Financial Times reveals that they are G4S, Seetec, Interserve and Pertemps. Why it hasn't named the other two, I have no idea, but A4e hasn't said anything, and Serco has launched a rescue rights issue, so perhaps they both lost out. The FT says that G4S is the biggest winner. It also says: "It
comes less than three weeks after the British government lifted a ban
on G4S bidding for public sector work and suggests that Whitehall is
taking a favourable view towards one of its largest contractors,
despite insisting that the company remains under close scrutiny."
But hang on a minute. The bidding must have taken place during the time in which that ban was supposed to be in place. And the company was "cleared" just in time for the announcement of its success. Who is the government trying to kid?
The whole "Help to Work" story today has been utterly depressing. This morning, on Radio 4's Today programme, Evan Davies had the dubious pleasure of trying to interview the appalling Esther McVey. I bet he didn't want to. When he tried to pose questions to her boss, Iain Duncan Smith, recently he ended up being complained about by ignorant listeners. McVey did the same trick this morning - spouting utter twaddle and not answering questions. The reaction to the new scheme in the media has been predictable. The Guardian and the Independent get it right, while the Express salivates at the prospect of bludgeoning the poor even harder. The BBC interviewed Kirsty McHugh of the ERSA, who said what you would expect since she's paid by the outsourcing companies, and Richard Johnson who used to work for Serco and talked sense.
So let's spell it out. This scheme is largely about IDS's temper at the failure of the Work Programme, which he interprets as the failure of the unemployed. So they must be punished. And it will have the advantage of taking loads of people out of the unemployment figures. They will be sanctioned en masse, or driven into the black economy, or forced onto workfare and so counted as employed.
Newsnight is doing something on the scheme. I don't think I'll watch.
But hang on a minute. The bidding must have taken place during the time in which that ban was supposed to be in place. And the company was "cleared" just in time for the announcement of its success. Who is the government trying to kid?
The whole "Help to Work" story today has been utterly depressing. This morning, on Radio 4's Today programme, Evan Davies had the dubious pleasure of trying to interview the appalling Esther McVey. I bet he didn't want to. When he tried to pose questions to her boss, Iain Duncan Smith, recently he ended up being complained about by ignorant listeners. McVey did the same trick this morning - spouting utter twaddle and not answering questions. The reaction to the new scheme in the media has been predictable. The Guardian and the Independent get it right, while the Express salivates at the prospect of bludgeoning the poor even harder. The BBC interviewed Kirsty McHugh of the ERSA, who said what you would expect since she's paid by the outsourcing companies, and Richard Johnson who used to work for Serco and talked sense.
So let's spell it out. This scheme is largely about IDS's temper at the failure of the Work Programme, which he interprets as the failure of the unemployed. So they must be punished. And it will have the advantage of taking loads of people out of the unemployment figures. They will be sanctioned en masse, or driven into the black economy, or forced onto workfare and so counted as employed.
Newsnight is doing something on the scheme. I don't think I'll watch.
Labels:
Esther McVey,
Financial Times,
G4S,
Help to Work,
Iain Duncan Smith,
Interserve,
Kirsty McHugh,
Pertemps,
Richard Johnson,
Seetec,
Work Programme
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)