We start with this:-
"This memorandum provides some historical information concerning the behaviour of Serco and G4S who were previously awarded contracts in 2005 for electronic monitoring services in England and Wales.Under those contracts, Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died. This issue came to light in 2013, contracts were terminated, and the matter was referred to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for investigation."
* falsifying its Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2011 by reporting an additional £7.5m of purported revenue (charge 5).
But then: "On 26 April 2021, the prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office (the "SFO") of fraud charges against two former directors of Serco Geografix Limited ("Serco") collapsed. At the commencement of the trial, 9 years after the conduct underlying the charges began, and 7 years after the SFO commenced its investigation into Serco, disclosure failings came to light."
Winner Winner, Michelin 5 Star Dinner! MoJ gets a £70million bung, Serco get £hundreds-of-millions in new contracts, Serco directors aren't prosecuted, er, that's it. Nothing to see here. It's all perfectly normal.
The Contract awarded:
Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS). The provision of contact and monitoring centre and field service functions for Electronic Monitoring. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has awarded this contract for the provision of Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS)... FMS is a service which has been delivered under one national contract... FMS includes the monitoring of offenders released on licence which covers Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring and Alcohol monitoring (AM).
Value of contract: £329,900,000.00
Contract start date: 27 October 2023
Contract end date: 30 April 2030
This contract was awarded to 1 supplier: Serco Corporate Services Ltd
On the contracts:
Lord Filkin: You have a duopoly, in effect, with just two suppliers, at a time when you are doubling your demand.
Lord Timpson: This is a contract that we inherited.
Lord Filkin: The implication of what you have said, Minister, is that you are contractually locked into those two suppliers. For how long are you contractually locked into those two suppliers?
Jim Barton: I am happy to come in on that point, Lord Filkin. There are a few points. The current contracts run until 2030. They are not monopoly contracts. If we wanted to, we would be able to run parallel competitions for alternative EM provision... We do not want to do that
The Chair: So that we are absolutely clear, the contract, as we understood it, with Serco and Allied Universal is basically a six-year contract from 2024 to 2030, but there is then an additional two-year option to extend it. During that period of time, you have said that you could be in a position to run a parallel contract or contracts
Jim Barton: To be really clear, we have no plan whatsoever to run a parallel contract... Our contracts work... We need to keep working with Serco and Allied Universal.
The Chair: Mr Barton, you are continuing to tell me what you have chosen to do. I am merely asking whether you have the option to do it differently, should you choose to do it differently.
Jim Barton: Apologies, Lord Chair. I think I said yes, but perhaps in Civil Service terms
The Chair: We hear very clearly where you are coming from, Mr Barton. We will move on.
The future:
Baroness Cash: We would be very interested to have some insight into what is coming.
Lord Timpson: The first thing to say is that everyone gets very excited about new things... We are exploring new hardware. We had a “Dragons’ Den” event before the Recess... We are trialling, from spring next year, live access for probation to where someone is. We will be able to check in. For example, an offender comes to see a probation officer and they say, “Why weren’t you at your appointment last week?” They say, “I was at the doctor’s”. They will be able to go in and say, “You weren’t at the doctor’s. You were in Blackpool for the day”... I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively.
Jim Barton: I have a few very quick additions, if I may... The acquisitive crime pathfinder that the Minister referenced is a good example of that, through which we are already able to provide, not live but overnight, GPS data for probation practitioners where they have robbers or burglars on their case load.
Lord Timpson: There is a small trial still going on in Northumberland on proximity tags
Oh yes, cobbler, we hear VERY, VERY clearly where you are coming from:
"Working in a prison is the most amazing job. If I had not gone down my path in commercial life, I think it would have been a most rewarding job to do. We have done a really good job on recruitment."
"I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively."
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO
THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING (RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) (AMENDMENT)
ORDER 2024
2024 No. 328
"This memorandum provides some historical information concerning the behaviour of Serco and G4S who were previously awarded contracts in 2005 for electronic monitoring services in England and Wales.Under those contracts, Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died. This issue came to light in 2013, contracts were terminated, and the matter was referred to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for investigation."
(the excuses on serco's behalf up front)
Some gems from this memo:
* Licence conditions should be preventative as opposed to punitive and must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary.
* The exception is where prisoners are released early on Home Detention Curfew... For these prisoners the curfew also has a punitive role that reflects the fact that they are still serving the custodial element of the sentence.
* Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died.
* A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Serco was approved by Mr Justice William Davis, resulting in a fine of £19.2m and the payment of compensation to the Ministry of Justice of £70m.
* The SFO agreed to the DPA in recognition of Serco’s prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct
Uh? ... "A subsidiary of contracting giant Serco will pay a £19.2m fine after admitting lying to the Ministry of Justice about the true extent of profits from supplying electronic tags. Lisa Osofsky, director of the Serious Fraud Office, said SGL ‘engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the Ministry of Justice in order to profit unlawfully at the expense of UK taxpayers’. The conduct came to light in late 2013 in an investigation into Serco and its employees in respect of the tagging contract."
Ah, I see... "Credit was given in the deferred prosecution agreement for the prompt compensation payment to the MoJ"
The background is neatly summarised by the SFO itself:
“Serco Geografix Ltd devised a scheme to defraud the Ministry of Justice by hiding the true extent of the profits being made between 2010 and 2013 by its parent company, Serco Limited, from its contract for the provision of electronic monitoring services. By dishonestly misleading the Ministry of Justice in this way, Serco Geografix Ltd prevented the Ministry of Justice from attempting to limit any of Serco Limited’s future profits, recover any of Serco Limited’s previous profits, seek more favourable terms during renegotiations of contracts, or otherwise threaten Serco Limited’s contract revenues."
Hence the 'prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct' via:
* falsifying accounting records to overstate revenue earned and costs incurred in the performance of the services (charges 1-4);
* Licence conditions should be preventative as opposed to punitive and must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary.
* The exception is where prisoners are released early on Home Detention Curfew... For these prisoners the curfew also has a punitive role that reflects the fact that they are still serving the custodial element of the sentence.
* Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died.
* A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Serco was approved by Mr Justice William Davis, resulting in a fine of £19.2m and the payment of compensation to the Ministry of Justice of £70m.
* The SFO agreed to the DPA in recognition of Serco’s prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct
Uh? ... "A subsidiary of contracting giant Serco will pay a £19.2m fine after admitting lying to the Ministry of Justice about the true extent of profits from supplying electronic tags. Lisa Osofsky, director of the Serious Fraud Office, said SGL ‘engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the Ministry of Justice in order to profit unlawfully at the expense of UK taxpayers’. The conduct came to light in late 2013 in an investigation into Serco and its employees in respect of the tagging contract."
Ah, I see... "Credit was given in the deferred prosecution agreement for the prompt compensation payment to the MoJ"
The background is neatly summarised by the SFO itself:
“Serco Geografix Ltd devised a scheme to defraud the Ministry of Justice by hiding the true extent of the profits being made between 2010 and 2013 by its parent company, Serco Limited, from its contract for the provision of electronic monitoring services. By dishonestly misleading the Ministry of Justice in this way, Serco Geografix Ltd prevented the Ministry of Justice from attempting to limit any of Serco Limited’s future profits, recover any of Serco Limited’s previous profits, seek more favourable terms during renegotiations of contracts, or otherwise threaten Serco Limited’s contract revenues."
Hence the 'prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct' via:
* falsifying accounting records to overstate revenue earned and costs incurred in the performance of the services (charges 1-4);
* falsifying its Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2011 by reporting an additional £7.5m of purported revenue (charge 5).
But then: "On 26 April 2021, the prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office (the "SFO") of fraud charges against two former directors of Serco Geografix Limited ("Serco") collapsed. At the commencement of the trial, 9 years after the conduct underlying the charges began, and 7 years after the SFO commenced its investigation into Serco, disclosure failings came to light."
Winner Winner, Michelin 5 Star Dinner! MoJ gets a £70million bung, Serco get £hundreds-of-millions in new contracts, Serco directors aren't prosecuted, er, that's it. Nothing to see here. It's all perfectly normal.
The Contract awarded:
Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS). The provision of contact and monitoring centre and field service functions for Electronic Monitoring. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has awarded this contract for the provision of Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS)... FMS is a service which has been delivered under one national contract... FMS includes the monitoring of offenders released on licence which covers Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring and Alcohol monitoring (AM).
Value of contract: £329,900,000.00
Contract start date: 27 October 2023
Contract end date: 30 April 2030
This contract was awarded to 1 supplier: Serco Corporate Services Ltd
--oo00oo--
House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee
House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee
Investigation into electronic monitoring 16 September 2025
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is questioning Lord Timpson OBE DL, Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and Jim Barton, Director for Probation Reform and Electronic Monitoring at the Ministry of Justice. The Committee will cover a range of topics, including the purpose of Electronic Monitoring, the future of Electronic Monitoring technology, anticipated increases in the use of Electronic Monitoring, and the use of Electronic Monitoring in detecting and preventing crime. The Committee will also ask about accountability mechanisms for private contractors, the consequences of breaching an Electronic Monitoring order, and the move to tag prison leavers as they leave prison.
The job title that sums it up in one pay packet: Director for Probation Reform and Electronic Monitoring. Highlights of the Timpson/Barton oral evidence... read it & weep:
On tagging:
Lord Bach: My general question is about what the Ministry of Justice sees as the purpose of electronic monitoring. I suppose another way of putting it is to ask whether probation can manage offenders just as effectively without resorting to electronic monitoring.
Lord Timpson: Electronic monitoring has an absolutely key central role in the justice sector. Its role is as punishment... Because we know that the technology works, you can look at what the evidence is... The technology is going to get more interesting.
Lord Tope: the Government are saying they really want to go big on EM... Is there going to be a new strategy?
Lord Timpson: There is not going to be a new strategy, but we need to expand the way electronic monitoring works ... to help us manage offenders more effectively in the community... we are doing a trial starting next month in six prisons where we will be, as we call it, tagging at source. That is, before people leave prison, we will be putting the tag on their ankle.
The truth about the £700million:
Lord Filkin: The plan is to double its use over the next few years, which is a quite remarkable increase. First, is probation ready for this?
Lord Timpson: As we expand electronic monitoring... We also need more probation staff... It is a case of recruiting them and training them up to do the job. That is where the £700 million of extra funding over the next three years is absolutely vital... I am confident in our suppliers’ ability to deliver this because I have ongoing conversations with them. I have had five board-level meetings with Serco.
Jim Barton: Building on the Minister’s evidence, we are working already with both suppliers in order to maximise the time that we have available to be ready for the expansion of EM... we have already delivered a doubling of the EM case load over the last five years. We have a track record of delivering significant expansions and innovations... How do we streamline process? That is where EM is so powerful, because it provides probation staff with data and information for them to have richer, more impactful conversations with the people on probation who they are working with.
On tagging:
Lord Bach: My general question is about what the Ministry of Justice sees as the purpose of electronic monitoring. I suppose another way of putting it is to ask whether probation can manage offenders just as effectively without resorting to electronic monitoring.
Lord Timpson: Electronic monitoring has an absolutely key central role in the justice sector. Its role is as punishment... Because we know that the technology works, you can look at what the evidence is... The technology is going to get more interesting.
Lord Tope: the Government are saying they really want to go big on EM... Is there going to be a new strategy?
Lord Timpson: There is not going to be a new strategy, but we need to expand the way electronic monitoring works ... to help us manage offenders more effectively in the community... we are doing a trial starting next month in six prisons where we will be, as we call it, tagging at source. That is, before people leave prison, we will be putting the tag on their ankle.
The truth about the £700million:
Lord Filkin: The plan is to double its use over the next few years, which is a quite remarkable increase. First, is probation ready for this?
Lord Timpson: As we expand electronic monitoring... We also need more probation staff... It is a case of recruiting them and training them up to do the job. That is where the £700 million of extra funding over the next three years is absolutely vital... I am confident in our suppliers’ ability to deliver this because I have ongoing conversations with them. I have had five board-level meetings with Serco.
Jim Barton: Building on the Minister’s evidence, we are working already with both suppliers in order to maximise the time that we have available to be ready for the expansion of EM... we have already delivered a doubling of the EM case load over the last five years. We have a track record of delivering significant expansions and innovations... How do we streamline process? That is where EM is so powerful, because it provides probation staff with data and information for them to have richer, more impactful conversations with the people on probation who they are working with.
On the contracts:
Lord Filkin: You have a duopoly, in effect, with just two suppliers, at a time when you are doubling your demand.
Lord Timpson: This is a contract that we inherited.
Lord Filkin: The implication of what you have said, Minister, is that you are contractually locked into those two suppliers. For how long are you contractually locked into those two suppliers?
Jim Barton: I am happy to come in on that point, Lord Filkin. There are a few points. The current contracts run until 2030. They are not monopoly contracts. If we wanted to, we would be able to run parallel competitions for alternative EM provision... We do not want to do that
The Chair: So that we are absolutely clear, the contract, as we understood it, with Serco and Allied Universal is basically a six-year contract from 2024 to 2030, but there is then an additional two-year option to extend it. During that period of time, you have said that you could be in a position to run a parallel contract or contracts
Jim Barton: To be really clear, we have no plan whatsoever to run a parallel contract... Our contracts work... We need to keep working with Serco and Allied Universal.
The Chair: Mr Barton, you are continuing to tell me what you have chosen to do. I am merely asking whether you have the option to do it differently, should you choose to do it differently.
Jim Barton: Apologies, Lord Chair. I think I said yes, but perhaps in Civil Service terms
The Chair: We hear very clearly where you are coming from, Mr Barton. We will move on.
The future:
Baroness Cash: We would be very interested to have some insight into what is coming.
Lord Timpson: The first thing to say is that everyone gets very excited about new things... We are exploring new hardware. We had a “Dragons’ Den” event before the Recess... We are trialling, from spring next year, live access for probation to where someone is. We will be able to check in. For example, an offender comes to see a probation officer and they say, “Why weren’t you at your appointment last week?” They say, “I was at the doctor’s”. They will be able to go in and say, “You weren’t at the doctor’s. You were in Blackpool for the day”... I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively.
Jim Barton: I have a few very quick additions, if I may... The acquisitive crime pathfinder that the Minister referenced is a good example of that, through which we are already able to provide, not live but overnight, GPS data for probation practitioners where they have robbers or burglars on their case load.
Lord Timpson: There is a small trial still going on in Northumberland on proximity tags
Oh yes, cobbler, we hear VERY, VERY clearly where you are coming from:
"Working in a prison is the most amazing job. If I had not gone down my path in commercial life, I think it would have been a most rewarding job to do. We have done a really good job on recruitment."
"I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively."
Wow, Lord Dimson really is a fool and it reads like he is more than happy for us to be recall trigger happy as per usual!
ReplyDeleteWhere were you at 4am 2 weeks ago??
I can't remember!
LIAR, back to prison with you...
Its interesting to see the acquisitive crime pathway mentioned in the same article as that regarding fraud committed by the main contractors.
ReplyDeleteWho acquired the most and who received the worst punishment?
What a miserable future
ReplyDeleteThe Chair: So that we are absolutely clear, the MoJ is presumably lobbying the Chancellor extremely hard in relation to the budget to ensure that this does not continue.
ReplyDeleteLord Timpson: We already have our allocation, but we have not divvied it up, so that is for the MoJ and me to work on.
Lord Filkin: what do you think about the private sector suppliers? They will tell you that they are ready, but are you content with just two suppliers?
Lord Timpson: As we expand electronic monitoring, we need more engagement, more kit and more work with our providers. We also need more probation staff. That is why, in the last year, we recruited 1,050 extra probation staff. Next year, it will be 1,300. That is where the £700 million of extra funding over the next three years is absolutely vital
***
So 1,300 staff at, let’s be generous & say £40,000/year with on-costs, over 3 years ~ £150million
That leaves £550million for “more engagement, more kit and more work with our providers.”
Yep, we see you cobbler.
Things aren’t getting better and it’s all been said before. Even when we had real champions, eloquent and right in their arguments, they couldn’t stop Probation’s slide to where it is now. Whether through Napo, the Probation Institute, or anyone else, nothing changed.
ReplyDeleteNow probation’s set to get £700m worth of tagging and turn into a tagging and enforcement agency. Honestly, what’s going on?
https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/09/dear-mr-jones.html?m=1
"Licence conditions should be preventative as opposed to punitive and must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary".
ReplyDeleteOpinions may vary.
sox
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9r5m74de8o
ReplyDeleteA company providing accommodation to asylum seekers has made nearly £187m in profits since being awarded lucrative government contracts, despite allegations of "terrible" conditions at the hotels it uses.
Clearsprings Ready Homes is one of three companies with 10-year Home Office contracts to provide accommodation services for asylum seekers.
The problem is NOT asylum seekers, its the thieving bastards, the "usual suspects", who are gifted taxpayer money in the form of govt contracts... in this case, Labour's friends at Clearsprings. Remember the 'hostel' debacle?
https://www.thetottenhamindependent.co.uk/news/4085165.hidden-bail-hostel-revealed/
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4079950.fury-four-secret-bail-hostels-east-lancashire/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7377086.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8383591.stm
"The National Association of Probation Officers said the contract had been "a nightmare" and it was vital to have hostels with proper supervision.
https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/judicial-review-dismissed-swindon-magistrates-courts-decision-upheld-to-allow-prosecution-of-clearsprings-ready-homes-for-housing-standards-breach-in-asylum-support-accommodation/
ClearSprings, which runs 204 centres in England and Wales, declined to comment."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/clearsprings-asylum-seekers-home-office-hotels-suella-braverman/
DeleteA Home Office contractor that raked in £28m of profit last year is responsible for trying to cram asylum seekers into tiny hotel rooms without beds, openDemocracy can reveal.
Clearsprings also boasted in its annual accounts of “growth” in demand for its services due to soaring numbers of asylum seekers fleeing “political and economic turmoil”.
_______________________________________________
The scandals of govt contracts & their impact on the public purse, regardless of the administration in charge, are beyond belief: mone/medpro & ppe, serco/g4s & tags, clearsprings & hostels,/hotels, etc etc ad nauseaum.
"NAO: Previous government 'prioritized speed' to award contracts
DeleteThe NAO audit found that in order to meet an ambitious accommodation timetable, the former government had "prioritized speed" over the way it awarded contracts "over generating competition." This seems to have been the case, according to the report, with Clearsprings, that the Home Office confirmed is subcontracting to SBHL.
According to the NAO report published last year, the former government "awarded contracts to suppliers worth 254 million pounds in total (about 304 million euros), of which 244 million (about 292 million euros) was awarded without a full competitive process." One of those contractors, according to the report, was Clearsprings, another was Serco. The report states the Home Office increased the Clearsprings contract value by 101 million pounds (about 120 million euros)."
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/63607/uk-government-to-scrap-contract-with-one-of-its-biggest-asylum-accommodation-providers
__________
https://www.hotelmanagement-network.com/news/hotel-bills-unpaid-asylum-seekers-may-be-evicted/
"Hundreds of asylum seekers face possible eviction from hotels across the UK due to a dispute over unpaid bills. Hotel operators say they have not received payments for months from Clearsprings Ready Homes, a contractor that previously managed Home Office accommodation services.
The Home Office recently ended its contract with the company, but outstanding debts have reportedly left hoteliers under financial pressure."
_______
But hey! Leave our chums alone & let's just blame asylum seekers & offenders & probation & other public service staff for the woes of the nation.
Anon 09:07 I remember Clearsprings! BBC News 28/11/09:-
DeleteCritics have condemned the practice of using a private firm to run bail hostels after it was revealed that the company's contract may be terminated.
It comes after failings were identified at a hostel on Teesside where a young man was murdered by another resident.
The National Association of Probation Officers said the contract had been "a nightmare" and it was vital to have hostels with proper supervision.
ClearSprings, which runs 204 centres in England and Wales, declined to comment.
The company has been served with a "rectification notice" by the Ministry of Justice.
The ministry, which awarded the national contract to ClearSprings in 2007, said the firm had 15 days to respond to the notice with "remedial measures". The notice period expires on Saturday.
It said that if the company failed to comply, one option was termination of the three-year contract.
National Association of Probation Officers official Harry Fletcher told the BBC: "It's just not on, putting four or five volatile individuals in the same place with no supervision.
"The government has got to go back to the days when people on bail were supervised properly, by experienced and trained staff. It's as simple as that.
"This has been a nightmare, it's been a mistake, it needs to be unravelled."
The ClearSprings contract runs out in June 2010. The ministry said it was in the process of seeking bidders for the contract to run bail hostels after that date.