Probation reform - the view from the voluntary sector
Today I will be giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into the future of the probation service. Clinks has already submitted written evidence to the committee which you can read here. This is based on feedback from a wide range of organisations across the voluntary sector and raises many of the issues highlighted in my last blog including the voluntary sector’s concerns on the complexity of the commissioning, the need for costly IT infrastructure and for credit reports not suited to illustrating the financial health of voluntary sector organisations. In my last blog I also highlighted ongoing questions around the contract values and the predicted number of services users these are based upon.
As transition towards the new model progresses and now that we are half way through the competition process for the commissioning of services to be up and running alongside the National Probation Service (NPS) from day one of the new model (Education Training and Employment (ETE), Accommodation, Personal Wellbeing and Women’s Centred Services), I will be reflecting to the Justice Committee Clinks’ views on whether the model offers sufficient opportunity for voluntary sector organisations.
Is there sufficient resource and opportunity for the voluntary sector?
Overall HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is investing a significant amount of money, probably more than ever before, in the kinds of services that our sector has the expertise and experience in providing. By year three and four of the new model onwards it is forecast that £120m will be spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services.
Although the total overall investment that will be made in future years is sizeable, not all services that can be commissioned through the Dynamic Framework in the future are being commissioned to be in operation from day one of the new model. This means that in the early months the amount spent on commissioned services will be considerably less and there are only opportunities for some parts of the voluntary sector.
That said the investment in year one is still greater than Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) data indicates is currently spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services. However, the contract values also need to cover more than just service delivery with substantial requirements around having offices in certain locations where services can be based, IT infrastructure and also the need to be able to cover future pension liabilities for staff transferring from CRCs.
Organisations are feeding back to us that for the competitions that have gone live so far, these requirements mean they are having to shave service delivery to the bone, have limited ability to involve the range of partners they would like and are sometimes struggling to make contracts break even.
We have also heard that as a result of this, some larger providers including private primes, are looking to the multi service contracts of personal wellbeing and women’s services as more likely to represent opportunities for economies of scale. This could have a negative impact on the ability of small specialist organisations to compete for these contracts.
Is the sector able to engage with the commissioning process?
The issues regarding the complexity of the commissioning process raised in my previous blog remain, and present a significant challenge to the sector. At the end of August over 370 organisations had registered interest in the Dynamic Framework. Over 150 organisations had completed Selection Questionnaires (the supplier qualification form) and at least 60% of those were voluntary organisations. Over 70 of those 150 had already qualified onto the Dynamic Framework. These numbers represent a small proportion of the 1700 organisations estimated to be in the sector, two thirds of which work with people under probation supervision.
As with everything, the complexity of the commissioning has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has meant that both the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the voluntary sector are engaging in a complex commissioning process with reduced resources and in a reduced period of time.
At the first meeting of the Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3) Probation Special Interest Group, members recommended that for the sector to engage in commissioning at this time all information should be clearly available at the beginning of any call off. However, this has not been the case and voluntary sector organisations are having to individually ask huge numbers of clarification questions. At Clinks we find ourselves not just influencing on overarching policy issues but having to understand and question significant details of the contracts.
Do the proposed services meet need?
Covid-19 has also reduced HMPPS and MoJ resources in such a way that they had to take the decision to commission less services for day one, leaving out Alcohol and Dependency and Finance, Benefit and Debt. For the remaining day one services the competition was restructured to commission Accommodation and ETE across regional probation areas rather than Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) areas. This has further reduced the day one opportunities for the sector overall and as the Accommodation and ETE contracts are larger, there is less scope for the involvement of smaller organisations with more local footprints or delivering specialist services to certain cohorts. These organisations can now only get involved in the delivery of these contracts through partnerships and sub-contracting.
As well as commissioning a more limited set of services for day one, the service specifications in each of the categories are different to that which are currently commissioned by CRCs. There are substantial changes to the Through the Gate model which means that the sector will likely be delivering a more limited amount of pre-release support. This has raised concerns that the learning and benefits of the current Enhanced Through the Gate model which allow for collaboration and closer working between the voluntary sector, CRCs and prisons will be lost.
There is also an assumption inherent in the commissioning model that services will take a while to ramp up and as such the number of service users would be lower in the first couple of years than in later years. Given the needs the voluntary sector knows to exist amongst people under probation supervision, this does not make sense. In part as a result of Clinks and RR3 influencing, these issues have been addressed in the accommodation contract.
We are also engaged in ongoing discussions to understand the contract values for women’s services. As multi service contracts there is added complexity in ensuring it is costed appropriately given that an individual woman may have multiple co-occuring needs that the service will be required to address.
Raising our concerns with HMPPS
We have raised these issues with Amy Rees, Director General of Probation at HMPPS and the probation reform team have engaged positively with us in trying to mitigate these issues. We are currently exploring with them options for providing support to organisations around the IT requirements of the contracts and we hope that we might see the remaining call offs address some of our other concerns.
We hope that this will mean that the forthcoming competition for personal wellbeing and women’s services will avoid some of the challenges around contract value that we have seen with accommodation and ETE, however we are concerned that the questions around estates, and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) liabilities will remain. In addition, the challenges around the complexity and structure of the commissioning model are to a large extent challenges with the cross-government procurement model than with policy choices made by the probation reform team.
Conclusion
We continue to be concerned that despite the increased investment in rehabilitation and resettlement services presented by the new model, the contracts for day one services do not provide significant enough opportunity for the voluntary sector. Where the voluntary sector is successful in the procurements, they may find themselves subsiding contracts in order to deliver quality of service, just as our research found is the case with current Transforming Rehabilitation contracts. We may also have to wait some time before Regional Probation Directors feel the NPS is sufficiently established to turn their attention to commissioning services for day two and beyond. All this threatens the sustainability of the criminal justice voluntary sector and is brought into sharper focus when we consider the impact of Covid-19.
Clinks wholeheartedly believes, that the probation service needs the expertise and experience of the voluntary sector to achieve improved outcomes for the people under its supervision and the communities they live in. For this reason I’ll be raising these issues in my evidence to the Justice Committee this afternoon and we will continue to highlight our concerns with the probation reform team as well as HMPPS, MoJ and the government more widely so that the voluntary sector is able to continue to work alongside probation and across the wider criminal justice system.
Today I will be giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into the future of the probation service. Clinks has already submitted written evidence to the committee which you can read here. This is based on feedback from a wide range of organisations across the voluntary sector and raises many of the issues highlighted in my last blog including the voluntary sector’s concerns on the complexity of the commissioning, the need for costly IT infrastructure and for credit reports not suited to illustrating the financial health of voluntary sector organisations. In my last blog I also highlighted ongoing questions around the contract values and the predicted number of services users these are based upon.
As transition towards the new model progresses and now that we are half way through the competition process for the commissioning of services to be up and running alongside the National Probation Service (NPS) from day one of the new model (Education Training and Employment (ETE), Accommodation, Personal Wellbeing and Women’s Centred Services), I will be reflecting to the Justice Committee Clinks’ views on whether the model offers sufficient opportunity for voluntary sector organisations.
Is there sufficient resource and opportunity for the voluntary sector?
Overall HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is investing a significant amount of money, probably more than ever before, in the kinds of services that our sector has the expertise and experience in providing. By year three and four of the new model onwards it is forecast that £120m will be spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services.
Although the total overall investment that will be made in future years is sizeable, not all services that can be commissioned through the Dynamic Framework in the future are being commissioned to be in operation from day one of the new model. This means that in the early months the amount spent on commissioned services will be considerably less and there are only opportunities for some parts of the voluntary sector.
That said the investment in year one is still greater than Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) data indicates is currently spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services. However, the contract values also need to cover more than just service delivery with substantial requirements around having offices in certain locations where services can be based, IT infrastructure and also the need to be able to cover future pension liabilities for staff transferring from CRCs.
Organisations are feeding back to us that for the competitions that have gone live so far, these requirements mean they are having to shave service delivery to the bone, have limited ability to involve the range of partners they would like and are sometimes struggling to make contracts break even.
We have also heard that as a result of this, some larger providers including private primes, are looking to the multi service contracts of personal wellbeing and women’s services as more likely to represent opportunities for economies of scale. This could have a negative impact on the ability of small specialist organisations to compete for these contracts.
Cancellation of Probation Delivery Partner contracts
The cancellation of the Probation Delivery Partner Contracts for the delivery of unpaid work and accredited programmes raised some concerns in the sector that less investment would flow to charities. In reality, the cancellation of these contracts makes little difference to the majority of the small and specialist organisations in the voluntary sector who would have been unable to bid for contracts of that size. Some have questioned how the funds for those contracts will now be spent - but HMPPS is clear that these will now be utilised in service delivery by the NPS and that there was little additional resource for contract management.
One potential implication of this, is that the larger organisations who had seen an opportunity in these contracts are now more likely to be competing with small and specialist organisations for the opportunities presented by the Dynamic Framework.
The cancellation of the Probation Delivery Partner Contracts for the delivery of unpaid work and accredited programmes raised some concerns in the sector that less investment would flow to charities. In reality, the cancellation of these contracts makes little difference to the majority of the small and specialist organisations in the voluntary sector who would have been unable to bid for contracts of that size. Some have questioned how the funds for those contracts will now be spent - but HMPPS is clear that these will now be utilised in service delivery by the NPS and that there was little additional resource for contract management.
One potential implication of this, is that the larger organisations who had seen an opportunity in these contracts are now more likely to be competing with small and specialist organisations for the opportunities presented by the Dynamic Framework.
Is the sector able to engage with the commissioning process?
The issues regarding the complexity of the commissioning process raised in my previous blog remain, and present a significant challenge to the sector. At the end of August over 370 organisations had registered interest in the Dynamic Framework. Over 150 organisations had completed Selection Questionnaires (the supplier qualification form) and at least 60% of those were voluntary organisations. Over 70 of those 150 had already qualified onto the Dynamic Framework. These numbers represent a small proportion of the 1700 organisations estimated to be in the sector, two thirds of which work with people under probation supervision.
As with everything, the complexity of the commissioning has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has meant that both the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the voluntary sector are engaging in a complex commissioning process with reduced resources and in a reduced period of time.
At the first meeting of the Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3) Probation Special Interest Group, members recommended that for the sector to engage in commissioning at this time all information should be clearly available at the beginning of any call off. However, this has not been the case and voluntary sector organisations are having to individually ask huge numbers of clarification questions. At Clinks we find ourselves not just influencing on overarching policy issues but having to understand and question significant details of the contracts.
Do the proposed services meet need?
Covid-19 has also reduced HMPPS and MoJ resources in such a way that they had to take the decision to commission less services for day one, leaving out Alcohol and Dependency and Finance, Benefit and Debt. For the remaining day one services the competition was restructured to commission Accommodation and ETE across regional probation areas rather than Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) areas. This has further reduced the day one opportunities for the sector overall and as the Accommodation and ETE contracts are larger, there is less scope for the involvement of smaller organisations with more local footprints or delivering specialist services to certain cohorts. These organisations can now only get involved in the delivery of these contracts through partnerships and sub-contracting.
As well as commissioning a more limited set of services for day one, the service specifications in each of the categories are different to that which are currently commissioned by CRCs. There are substantial changes to the Through the Gate model which means that the sector will likely be delivering a more limited amount of pre-release support. This has raised concerns that the learning and benefits of the current Enhanced Through the Gate model which allow for collaboration and closer working between the voluntary sector, CRCs and prisons will be lost.
There is also an assumption inherent in the commissioning model that services will take a while to ramp up and as such the number of service users would be lower in the first couple of years than in later years. Given the needs the voluntary sector knows to exist amongst people under probation supervision, this does not make sense. In part as a result of Clinks and RR3 influencing, these issues have been addressed in the accommodation contract.
We are also engaged in ongoing discussions to understand the contract values for women’s services. As multi service contracts there is added complexity in ensuring it is costed appropriately given that an individual woman may have multiple co-occuring needs that the service will be required to address.
Raising our concerns with HMPPS
We have raised these issues with Amy Rees, Director General of Probation at HMPPS and the probation reform team have engaged positively with us in trying to mitigate these issues. We are currently exploring with them options for providing support to organisations around the IT requirements of the contracts and we hope that we might see the remaining call offs address some of our other concerns.
We hope that this will mean that the forthcoming competition for personal wellbeing and women’s services will avoid some of the challenges around contract value that we have seen with accommodation and ETE, however we are concerned that the questions around estates, and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) liabilities will remain. In addition, the challenges around the complexity and structure of the commissioning model are to a large extent challenges with the cross-government procurement model than with policy choices made by the probation reform team.
Conclusion
We continue to be concerned that despite the increased investment in rehabilitation and resettlement services presented by the new model, the contracts for day one services do not provide significant enough opportunity for the voluntary sector. Where the voluntary sector is successful in the procurements, they may find themselves subsiding contracts in order to deliver quality of service, just as our research found is the case with current Transforming Rehabilitation contracts. We may also have to wait some time before Regional Probation Directors feel the NPS is sufficiently established to turn their attention to commissioning services for day two and beyond. All this threatens the sustainability of the criminal justice voluntary sector and is brought into sharper focus when we consider the impact of Covid-19.
Clinks wholeheartedly believes, that the probation service needs the expertise and experience of the voluntary sector to achieve improved outcomes for the people under its supervision and the communities they live in. For this reason I’ll be raising these issues in my evidence to the Justice Committee this afternoon and we will continue to highlight our concerns with the probation reform team as well as HMPPS, MoJ and the government more widely so that the voluntary sector is able to continue to work alongside probation and across the wider criminal justice system.
Jessica Mullen
Director of Influence and Communications
A professional comunicator. Irrelevant whther you like the message, it has moved Clinks into a position of significant influence with politicians, with sentencers, with the voluntary sector providers and, most importantly, with HMPPS. The document submitted as evidence to JSC was impressive & caught Sir Bob's imagination. Its the quality of evidence & communication one might expect from a national trade union or professional organisation.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that. It was not detailed research just an opinion on contracts size and comparison to some task. Ignoring uw and programmes . Worst of all a naive expectation CRC staff will be transferring . Perhaps some but be warned now in march mass redundancies for those not going to NPS.
DeleteI do not necessarily agree with the Clinks approach, nor do I think their submission was based on "detailed research", but they have a strong voice because of their skills in re-framing the issues & assuming a position of authority in the field.
DeleteJust look at how Mullen pitches at the JSC:
Mullen - The Committee will be familiar with our research on TR, which found that the voluntary sector is under-represented, under pressure and under-resourced in the current model...
Q72 Richard Burgon: I want to refer to the Clinks 2018 report that Jessica has just referred to, “Under Represented, Under Pressure, Under Resourced”... That report shows how heavily the probation system relies on the work of voluntary organisations...
Mullen - Probation is a very significant part of the voluntary sector’s work in criminal justice...
Q 76 Chair: Jessica, do you have anything to add?
Mullen - I do not want to repeat the detail that is in our written submission...
It explicitly re-frames probation as a part of to the voluntary sector providers' economy and places their written submission in pole position as the go-to document, even for Richard Burgon who says (it bears repeating because it is significant):
"That report shows how heavily the probation system relies on the work of voluntary organisations"
And the Clinks submission to JSC pulls no punches. They are not cosy bedfellows with HMPPS/MoJ or NPS/CRCs. Just look at the language of their recommendations - it reads like I imagine a Napo document should read:
Delete1. Regional Probation Directors must ensure engagement with service users and voluntary organisations in both the transition planning and the annual business cycle planning.
2. The Justice Committee should seek clarification on how joined up working between the National Probation Service and other statutory services... will ensure a role for the voluntary sector in this provision.
3. There should be budget set aside within the new model of unpaid work and accredited programmes to enable the NPS to commission voluntary sector services
5. The Target Operating Model should be updated to provide further detail on how the future probation service will tackle race inequality in the CJS
7. MoJ should set specified targets to increase the provision of full written pre-sentence reports, especially for those at risk of short-term imprisonment, BAME people, people facing multiple disadvantage and women.
8. We encourage the Justice Committee to seek clarification from MoJ and HMPPS about the status of the roll-out of the OMiC model and the readiness of the OMiC model to play an integral role in resettlement planning from June 2021.
11. Budgets should be set aside from the dynamic framework for each Regional Probation Director and their team to administer a light-touch grants programme
12. HMPPS should engage with BAME-led organisations and BAME service users
13. The risk-based approach to external communications by MoJ and HMPPS must be revised, in order to ensure vital operational information is shared as widely and as quickly as possible
14. The MoJ and HMPPS should better hold CRCs to account
That is an example how to take control of an agenda, how to get the movers & shakers to take notice, how to put yourself in pole position when it comes to shaping the future of your profession.
Compare & Contrast with the sum total of Napo General Secretary's evidence to the JSC; the evidence of the person at the helm of the probation workers' union:
DeleteIan Lawrence: We obviously welcome the prospect of a reunified service, and so do the members we represent, but we cannot gloss over the impact that two major reforms have had on all staff across the NPS and CRCs in terms of stress, high workloads and, as we have said to you before, the fragmentation of services that occurred from the start of the TR programme.
On support for staff generally, despite the positive outcomes of the staff transfer and protection agreement that will underpin the reunified model, and the excellent engagement we have had with senior management, there is still uncertainty for many staff and a lot of work to do as well. We have not had time to celebrate the reunification; we have been too busy working on the future programme.
To alleviate that, we think it will be useful to see more consistent communications from the CRCs—we know they are trying their best and we understand that—and staff being provided with clear answers from their senior leaders going forward about what the transition means for them, in the lead-in to the unified model and the publication of the revised operational blueprint, which we understand is due next spring. Ben Priestley wants to add to my answer, if possible.
Ian Lawrence: As I said earlier, we are working extremely positively with senior leaders. In the run-up to reunification, we worked with them on the staff transfer agreement you have heard about. We are now working on the crucial workforce strategy, which we are absolutely committed to. Within that, we hope to encompass all the key issues we have talked about thus far this afternoon. From the very positive engagement that we have had and the messages from people such as the director general of probation and Sonia Flynn, we are sure that we can move forward.
A word of caution, though; I have been around for quite some time, and I must have seen any number of workforce strategies launched by employers. Eventually, they go into the dust or get diluted down the track. You have heard enough from us already to understand how committed we are to seeing this new organisation prosper. We will do all we can, alongside our members and leaders everywhere, to imbue a new, refreshing culture and to see whether we can put some of the main focal points of the workforce strategy into operation.
It is a promising blueprint. There are a lot of promises, but, as people have said, staff need clear commitments and clear directives from the centre about what will be delivered for them, what their role will be going forward and what type of support we will get. In answering the question, we need to look across at the blame culture that, sadly, still exists in areas of probation. Katie wants to add something on that.
Sorry Ian, I know you get lambasted on a regular basis, but you have to accept that the JSC written submission looked like someone who hadn't done the set homework, panicked & handed in their rough notes; while your oral evidence was so light on detail it could have floated away. It was beyond bland.
Delete"I have been around for quite some time..." and it sounded like it: Tired, bored, not interested.
Sorry mate, its just not good enough.
The paint is thin the tiles are cracked. The roof leaks take your pick Ian Lawrence is not a genuine player. He is in it for his own glory but his lack of capacity is showing through. Either go and learn what trade unionism is supposed to be or for everyone's sake let's hope he gets lost soon. Napos decline is in race mode with him.
DeleteIn a similarly calamitous vein:
ReplyDeleteThe top leadership of NHS Test and Trace includes several senior figures brought in from retail, commerce and industry, but only one public health expert, a leaked structure document reveals.
Its executive committee also includes several senior civil servants and national NHS directors, but only one local authority chief executive, and two local NHS directors. The only clinician or public health expert is Susan Hopkins, an epidemiologist and Public Health England adviser on infection, the Health Service Journal reports.
The full “wider leadership team”, of around 80 posts, includes several other PHE experts, but no current public health directors, and no-one who has recently worked in public health locally.
It shows for the first time the people currently in charge of the programme, part of the Department of Health and Social Care, which has a £10bn budget for 2020-21. It has a vital role in controlling the pandemic in the UK, and is at the centre of current concerns over testing, tracing, and isolation.
A small number of its senior leaders have previously been identified, but the full structure — which has seen rapid turnover since it was established in the spring — has not been published.
The person who is listed as advisor to Baroness Harding, Alex Birtles, worked for TalkTalk as a product and commercial director until spring last year.
The executive committee:
DeleteDido Harding – executive chair –NHS Improvement chair since 2017, previously TalkTalk chief executive for seven years
David Pitt – chief operating officer
Sarah-Jane Marsh – testing divisional director - on secondment from being chief executive, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Foundation Trust
Haroona Franklin – tracing divisional director – previously the government’s director of future borders
Carolyn Wilkins – contain divisional director – on secondment from being Oldham Council chief executive
Clare Gardiner – Joint biosecurity centre director general – on secondment from being director of national resilience and strategy at the National Cyber Security Centre
Simon Bolton – chief information officer – CIO of Jaguar Land Rover until summer 2019
Gareth Williams – chief people officer – previous a senior HR manager for Travelex, a British foreign exchange company, BT, and other firms
Donald Shepherd – chief financial officer – previously finance and commercial director at Public Health England
Ben Dyson – director of policy – previously a senior policy director in NHS England and Improvement
Susan Hopkins – chief medical adviser – epidemiologist and adviser on infectious diseases and microbiology at PHE, with a research interest in outbreak investigation and surveillance, and healthcare associated infections
Jacqui Rock – chief commercial officer – commercial director at the Ministry of Defence 2017-2020, and before that at banks
Ben Stimson – chief customer officer — previously digital director at Waitrose
Raghuv Bhasin – chief of staff to Dido Harding — previously director of operations, Royal Berkshire Foundation Trust
Michael Brodie – interim chief executive, Public Health England — previously chief executive of the NHS Business Service Authority
Sept 2020 - The former chief executive of Sainsbury’s is to take over as testing director at NHS Test and Trace.
DeleteMike Coupe, who retired as chief executive officer of the Big 4 grocer at the end of May, is set to replace Sarah-Jane Marsh who is returning to her post as chief executive of Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust.
SkyNews today:
DeleteAmid claims that England's crucial COVID-19 contact tracing scheme has failed, Sky News can reveal that the government has been paying a five-person team of management consultants £25,000 a day to work on that part of the system.
The team from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) helped mastermind the creation of the contact tracing systems.
While they were only a fraction of the private sector consultants working on the test and trace system, they are believed to have been among the most expensive.
Two members of the team were being paid day rates of £7,360 while the remaining three were being paid £4,160 - though the consultancy gave the government a 10% discount for the job.
And for that, plus the other 35 or so BCG consultants on similar rates, we get a 60% efficiency:
Delete"Fresh figures published by Test and Trace today show that in the latest period for which there is data, the week to 7 October, the proportion of contacts successfully reached in England dropped to 62.9% - the lowest since the creation of the system."
Seen on Twitter:-
Delete"The government can only account for 4 billion pounds of the 12 billion spent on Serco track and trace. Where is the missing 8 billion pounds?"
From Investors Chronicle:-
DeleteUnder-fire services company Serco (SRP) says Covid-19 work has boosted revenue and profits beyond expectations partly thanks to the UK government extending its test site and test-and-trace contracts. It has come under attack from some MPs because of the performance of those two services.
The outsourcer has raised its full-year outlook for 2020, anticipating revenues of roughly £3.9bn. That's 5 per cent higher than previous guidance, and 15 per cent higher year-on-year. It also estimates that underlying trading profits will land at £160m-165m - 10 per cent higher than earlier guidance at the upper-end of the range (on an organic basis), and a 30 per cent improvement year-on-year.
On top of the UK contracts, Serco’s work in US healthcare and Australia’s immigration system boosted the year’s earnings guidance, also due to Covid-19.
As part of its trading update, the company put out a description of its work on track and trace, saying that it believed its “operational delivery [had] been outstanding”. Serco manages 25 per cent of the 500 UK testing sites and is one of two contractors that is responsible for contacting people identified to the company by NHS professionals as having been in close contact with someone who has tested positive for Covid-19. It noted that it is "not involved in other parts of the process" such as designing the overall programme, the NHS app or booking and providing tests.
In parliament this week, Labour MP Rachel Reeves said “sack Serco and give those resources to local councils”, noting that government's “Serco model” of test and trace had only managed to reach 69 per cent of people identified in England, while in Wales 83 per cent had been reached. Fellow Labour MP Dan Cardon said Serco was being “rewarded for its failure” with the contract extensions.
Outside of Westminster, Serco hit a different nerve with its profit upgrade. The group's shares climbed by as much as 18 per cent in response to its latest unscheduled trading statement, reaching 140p - though they are still down by 15 per cent year-to-date. The other positive news within the update was that adjusted net debt is expected to come down to £100m-£150m at the end of the year, from £200m previously expected.
The company said that a decision on bringing back the dividend would be made in December.
Serco has plenty of other businesses outside of the contentious UK, US and Australian work, but any perceived failure in high profile areas like healthcare put it under the spotlight. Tales of people travelling hours to get tested for Covid-19 are likely to stay with the public far more than Serco cutting its debt figure. Even so, looking at the balance sheet alone, we see value. Speculative buy.
DeleteNot being able to account for where the money has gone is not surprising when outsourced work is outsourced again.
DeleteWas it 37 companies that Serco subcontracted track and trace to?
37 layers of corporate confidentiality to get through from 37 companies that have contractual agreements with Serco and not the Government!
It's money laundering from the public purse!
'Getafix
Indeed!
DeleteI think there's a big difference between public services 'recruiting' services from the third sector, and third sector organisations 'selling' their services to the public sector. It changes the etos of mission, and they become much more similar to the private sectors focus on money and profit.
ReplyDeleteThere have been accusations recently from small third sector organisations, particularly from BAME organisations, that the larger third sector organisations are recruiting them solely for the purpose of 'bid candy'.
Seems the third sector may have learned something from TR after all!
'Getafix
Precissamente.
DeleteGove has just made a statement to HoC saying that intransigent EU have forced a No Deal Brexit.
ReplyDeleteThe lies continue as they try to rewrite history - again.
A bit like saying Andy Burnham is refusing to co-operate in Manchester.
Or that TR was an evidence-based certainty.
Or that the Test&Trace system is world-beating.
They are shameless liars, charlatans & thieves aided & abetted by a raft of self-interested shysters, lickspittles & duplicitous bullies.
Meanwhile here's the despicable do-nothing-for-anyone-but-themselves UK Govt version of today's covid-19 data
New cases - 18,804 out of 307,000 pcr tests
Deaths (per the 28-day rule) - 80
Almost 1,000 were admitted to hospital on Thurs 15 Oct
So winter approaches, and while the nation struggles to keep warm & stay alive the bullies, liars & cheats indulge in enriching & ennobling themselves & their chums.
FranK.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/19/the-horrors-of-covid-swapped-for-those-of-an-hour-with-michael-gove
ReplyDeleteGove appears to have no vestigial sense of shame. Politics for him is just a theatre in which truth and lies are interchangeable, and he retains an outward appearance where excessive politeness is merely a front for outright contempt. He is the original tabula rasa: every day – or even several times a day – he is the chameleon that reinterprets himself according to his surroundings. His mistakes are not merely forgiven, they are erased from memory.
One could be forgiven for thinking John Crace reads Jim's blog!
What No.10 Did Next. Vallance, Whitty - take note!
ReplyDelete"Donald Trump has once again attacked his top public health expert, using a call with campaign staff on Monday to deride Anthony Fauci as “a disaster” and to claim “people are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots” discuss ways to combat the coronavirus. Trump said: “Every time he [Dr Fauci] goes on television, there’s always a bomb, but there’s a bigger bomb if you fire him.”
Fauci told CBS the White House had been controlling his media appearances.
“I certainly have not been allowed to go on many, many, many shows that have asked for me,” he said, adding that restrictions had been inconsistent