Among those selected by the government to carry out its welare to work programme are Atos, G4S and Serco - all have dubious records carrying out public sector contracts.
Among those selected by the government to carry out its welare to work programme are Atos, G4S and Serco – companies that have dubious records carrying out public sector contracts.
For example, it was Atos’s healthcare arm that needed to pull out of a ten-year contract to run a GP surgery in London’s east end after three years, as it could not provide the services it promised and was suspended from providing ultrascans for the NHS, due to technical errors and recording patients information incorrectly. Up to 900 patients had to be rescanned.
G4S has a similarly chequered record.
Its security arm, in charge of deporting foreign nationals from the UK, has experienced controversy, as in one week last year when one of its detainees died while being held in custody, and another was found to have suffered:
“…multiple bruising or petechiae (purple skin spots caused by broken blood capillaries) on his torso, back and arms as well as tenderness over his lower abdomen.”
Meanwhile, Serco’s cleaning services at the Forth Valley Royal Hospital were found to be deficient after a Freedom of Investigation request by Australian union United Voice, worried about outsourcing to the multinational in its country.
Six out of eight wards failed to meet hygiene standards at Forth Valley.
A proponent of outsourcing could say that the way forward was obvious: do not renew the contracts involved and let Atos, G4S and Serco face the market consequences. Except this all does leave a puzzle. One reason why outsourcing is meant to work is that instead of government doing lots of jobs mediocrely, it should outsource services specialist companies that are experts in that particular service.
Yet these companies are not specialists in any type of service. Despite not mastering healthcare, detention or hygiene services, they offer dozens of services, that include welfare to work.
What does unite the different services is not what they actually involve, but that they require applying for public sector contracts. And for that, they hire lobbyists: lots of them.
So Serco have hired Bellenden, Fleishman-Hillard, Four Communications Group Plc and Weber Shandwick, thereby securing meetings with Home Office minister Nick Hurd, Tory party policy chief Oliver Letwin, and defence ministers Charles Hendry and Peter Luff. The circle is completed when a politician is hired by a contract-tenderer, for example when former defence secretary John Reid became a director at G4S.
We have seen recently how we still haven’t got it right on public services outsourcing. One part of the solution is about mkaing sure that those who offer the best services win contracts, not just who are best at the lobbying game.
43 Responses to “Welfare-to-work companies may be better at ‘playing the game’ than providing services”
Mason Dixon, Autistic
“I understood they had to keep people in jobs for 18 months minimum to get 90% of their costs.”
Which isn’t what you said earlier, that isn’t the same as ‘clients have to be in work for at least two years before the providers get paid’. Where did you actually read this? I posted my citation even before I was asked (you asked me after failing to actually look at the link I posted), you have posted no source for your bullshit.
Anon E Mouse
Mason Dixon, Autistic – You are nit picking to be awkward – I didn’t do the same to you when you clarified @10.
This is not a court room Mason Dixon, Autistic. Please calm down and stop being rude or I shall do the same and all that will be achieved is two impolite people posting here instead of just one – you in this case.
You have no need to use profanities in a public forum.
Children may be reading this and your case is not strengthened because of your vulgarity. It isn’t big and it isn’t clever.
You are claiming I am incorrect in my assertion that the fees for these companies are not paid in full up front. Please tell me which bit of that is incorrect. I do not have time to go through the whole of the document. You have (allegedly) read it. Please link to the relevant part that shows the companies get paid in full up front…
Mason Dixon, Autistic
Nit picking? You’re blatantly acting as if I said things completely different to what I actually did say. You’re acting as if what you actually said was something completely different too. You’ve gone from this:
“These companies don’t get paid until the individual has been working for at least two years.”
To this:
“I understood they had to keep people in jobs for 18 months minimum to get 90% of their costs.”
To this:
“You are claiming I am incorrect in my assertion that the fees for these companies are not paid in full up front. Please tell me which bit of that is incorrect. ”
The part that is incorrect is that these are not the same claim. They are not even three different versions of the same claim. They are three completely different claims. I gave the relevant citation before you even asked and now you’re stalling and haven’t provided a single citation for your original claim or the second one. Now I’m pretty sure you know how PDFs and Excel files work and that you can’t link to specific parts of them (externally in the case of PDFs), meaning you haven’t even bothered clicking the link I posted where you could see they were a PDF and XLS file. In any case it wouldn’t help you because to understand how the Work Programme pricing model works, you have to read the whole thing. If it could be summed up on a single page, then the Pricing Proposal would only be a page long. I’d say that pages 5 to 8 would be the most relevant, but this assumes this is a discussion being had in good faith. I have found it is anything but and that you are a wilful liar that simply tries to wear people down with gibberish mixed with strawmen and repeating what someone accuses you of back at them without the structure and constraints of evidence and context.
Anon E Mouse
Mason Dixon, Autistic – You claimed they would be paid up front.
I said they wouldn’t. You were making things up and without an upfront payment you have no case.
That’s it really. You can waffle on all you want and be as rude as you choose but you are wrong. The payments are not made up front so your point is complete personal opinion and I happen to disagree with it.
Simples.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
I never said anything of the sort Mouse. You can not quote anywhere in this thread where I did and you’re are mixing up the chronology now to make out as if I made the initial claim and you were the dissenting responder.
You posted that providers wouldn’t be paid until a client has been working for at least two years. I told you this was wrong and I told you why this is wrong with references towards the DWP’s published documents on it. You then started lying about what I had said and lying about what you had said and you still are.