How private firms take unfair advantage over the public sector to get government contracts

Tags

accountability, accountable, BBC, brain tumour, cancer treatment, censor, commercial, companies, company, conference, confidence, confidentiality, Conservative, contract, demonstration, disclosure, firm, fraud, Freedom of Information (Private Healthcare Companies) Bill, Freedom of Information Act, G4S, government, Grahame Morris, HCA, Health and Social Care Act, healthcare, Information Commissioner, Justice Select Committee, level playing field, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, National Health Service, NHS, outbid, overcharge, overcharging, private, privatisation, privatise, provider, public sector, requirement, scrutinise, scrutiny, Serco, Serious Fraud Office, service, tagging scandal, transparent, undercut, unequal, unfair advantage, University College Hospital, Vox Political

Open and transparent: Grahame Morris, who called for a ‘level playing field’ for both private companies and public organisations when bidding for government contracts.

Did you know that £1 in every £3 spent by the government goes to an independent or private-sector service provider?

If you also recall government ministers bemoaning the fact that £1 in every £4 spent by the government was borrowed, as they said very often during the first year or so of the Coalition, and you bear in mind the fact that all private companies must make a profit, you’ll come to a fairly damning conclusion.

Did you know, also, that private companies – while free to hide behind commercial confidentiality regarding the conditions under which billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are awarded to them in government contracts – may use Freedom of Information requests to gain detailed information about public sector organisations and then use that knowledge to undercut or outbid those bodies when government contracts are tendered or put up for renewal?

FoI regulations give private providers an unfair competitive advantage when bidding for contracts, due to unequal disclosure requirements.

Both of these were made clear in Grahame Morris’s short speech in support of his 10-minute rule motion to bring in a Bill amending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to apply to private healthcare companies, and for connected purposes.

He even pointed out that we are living in a society where freedom of information is routinely censored – stating that he attended a demonstration against NHS privatisation in Manchester at the start of the Conservative Party conference there, “but which was barely reported by our public sector broadcaster”.

He said the government should be chastened by recent events. “For example, the tagging scandal — involving Serco and G4S and uncovered by the Serious Fraud Office — showed that these companies had defrauded the taxpayer of more than £50 million.

“Perhaps we need a hard-hitting advertising campaign, with advertising hoardings on vans driven around the City of London, warning off corporate fraudsters from bidding for public contracts?

“The danger for our NHS is that we are inviting convicted fraudsters into our health system.”

He said HCA, the world’s biggest private healthcare company, recently won the contract to provide cancer treatment for NHS brain tumour patients, “stopping patients receiving world-class treatment at London’s University College Hospital”.

Mr Morris continued: “The Competition Commission has already caught HCA overcharging private patients in the United Kingdom. In the United States, HCA has had to pay fines and costs in excess of $2 billion for systematically defrauding federal healthcare programmes.

“The public are right to be concerned about these providers coming into the NHS. If that is to happen, it is essential that their operations and their contracts with the NHS should be open, transparent and subject to public scrutiny.”

Introducing his Freedom of Information (Private Healthcare Companies) Bill, he said its purpose was to strengthen FoI legislation and introduce vital safeguards, so members of the public can see how their money is being spent.

It seems he may even have read Vox Political‘s earlier article on his motion, as he said: “I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support fair competition, a level playing field and the duty of equal disclosure throughout the bidding process for NHS services.

“The public have a right to know the record of public and private providers before contracts are awarded. Those safeguards can work only if the Information Commissioner has the same rights to seek information and carry out investigations, and to make all providers of public services comply with freedom of information legislation.

“I understand that the Information Commissioner expressed concern to the Justice Select Committee that accountability would be undermined if FOI did not apply to private providers of public services.”

He said: “Freedom of information is one of the Labour Government’s greatest achievements, ensuring transparency and accountability in modern government and allowing the public access to information on what is being done in their name and how their money is being spent.

“In recent years, we have witnessed an acceleration in the number of public services being outsourced, and today roughly £1 in every £3 that the Government spend goes to independent or private sector providers.

“Owing to the Government’s policy of opening up public services to the private and voluntary sectors, billions of pounds of NHS contracts are now being made available to the private sector, following the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

“Unfortunately, while more and more taxpayer money is being handed to the private sector, especially in the NHS, FOI responsibilities are not following the public pound.

“There is a big issue here about transparency, because the public should know what is happening in their name, as was brought home to me recently in a demonstration against NHS privatisation in Manchester that I attended, along with more than 50,000 other people, but which was barely reported on by our public sector broadcaster.

“Private health care companies should not be permitted to hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being awarded to private sector companies under barely transparent contracts.

“Meanwhile, private companies are free to benefit by gaining detailed knowledge of public sector bodies through their use and submission of FOI requests. The same information is then used by the private sector to undercut or outbid the very same public sector bodies when contracts are tendered or put up for renewal.”

Although no objection was raised to the Bill going forward, it seems the Coalition has performed an about-face on the issue. Mr Morris said: “I understand that in opposition the Prime Minister was convinced about this matter, having previously promised to increase the range of publicly funded bodies subject to scrutiny using section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act.

“The coalition agreement also promised to extend the scope of the Act to provide greater transparency, but unfortunately it would appear that nothing is being done to address the democratic deficit caused by the outsourcing of public services.”

Sadly, it seems likely that this Bill won’t get very far, for reasons this blog has already mentioned – the Government usually opposes Private Member’s Bills in the later stages and, given their low priority in the schedule, there is often insufficient time for the debate to be completed.

But this may not matter, as the information already provided by Mr Morris makes fascinating reading that is damning for the government.

Children targeted in latest government attack on the disabled

Tags

accountability, allowance, benefit, BF57B, child, Department, Department for Work and Pensions, disability, Disability Living Allowance, disabled, DLA, Duncan, DWP, Guardian, health, Iain, Independent, living, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, parent, Pensions, PIP, politics, Smith, work

Does anybody remember when ‘accountability’ was the buzzword of the times? The public was going to be able to see who was responsible for the decisions affecting us, and would be able to seek recompense from those people when injustice arose.

Did we get it?

Here’s a story that you might have missed in all the Olympic hubbub, that raises the question of accountability again.

On August 2, The Independent reported on a letter that has started appearing on the doormats of parents who claim Disability Living Allowance for their children – the in-work benefit to cover the increased living costs faced by those with disabilities. It seems this document, the BF57B, goes out to every parent or guardian in receipt of DLA when they renew their claim, and the form must be signed before the claim can move forward.

The letter states that the Department for Work and Pensions wishes to review the recipient’s role as a parent. This seems innocent enough, but in fact it is the thin end of a threat to take the child into care, unless the wishes of the writer are followed.

It says the parent must “always act in the best interests of the child”, which is fair enough but exactly what every parent is expected – and hopes – to do, whether the government tells them or not. Then it provides a bullet-point list of what DWP demands this should include. This list includes: “manage and spend any money from Disability Living Allowance in a way that best serves [the child’s] best interests”.

What is this letter saying? That DLA claimants – unless coerced by the heavy hand of Iain Duncan Smith – will spend their cash on cigarettes, alcohol and satellite TV (the suggestions of the Independent columnist), rather than on necessities?

This is an in-work benefit. It is not likely to cover all the costs of looking after a disabled child. It is therefore likely that one or both parents will have a job as well, in order to cover those costs in full. Budgeting that money is their own business, as the people best qualified to care for their own child and manage their own household.

Not according to the DWP, though! Because they have a disabled child, the Department clearly now believes it is entitled to root around every aspect of a family’s life, in search of an excuse to cut off payments.

Beneath the bullet points are the ominous words, “We will review your status as an appointed person if we think that you are not acting in the best interests of the person named above”. In other words, if you do not spend your money exactly as we tell you, then we will remove it – and your child.

The letter might not say it in as many words, but the message is clear: We do not believe you are a fit person to receive money for this child. Our reason for thinking this is the fact that you have claimed this money. We intend to find a reason to take both the child and the money away from you.

The DWP says it is careful about the language it uses, and has re-stated its mantra that the benefits system has “trapped” many people in a “spiral” of welfare dependence.

The latter point is completely irrelevant to parents of disabled children on DLA. I repeat: It is an in-work benefit intended to help cover the extra costs of living with a disability. Depending on their individual conditions, those disabled children may find themselves claiming the benefit – perfectly correctly – throughout their life.

It is absolutely wrong to accuse parents of wrong-doing, simply because they have claimed what the law says they should.

So I want to know who wrote this letter. I want to see that person come out in public and explain precisely what their instructions were, why they chose those particular words, the meaning of the bullet-point list and how the threat to take children into care will be carried out. Then I want to see some good, old-fashioned punishment – not just for the person who wrote the letter but for the people who told them to do it, as well.

And anyway, what will the DWP do with all these disabled kids it wants to take into care?