Fit for purpose?

Ben Elford

Surely there is a law of diminishing returns that applies to embarrassing blunders; we've got so used to them from this government that they no longer have the same shock value they had even a year ago.

James J

If the cause was negligence the resultant costs should be reclaimed, including investigation costs. We have got used to settling for a few days’ ministerial embarrassment rather than consequences that would encourage more care. Individuals and companies should be made financially responsible whether they be consultancies or individual Social Workers in cases such as Victoria Climbia.Forget ‘censoring’ them: surcharge them.

Jennie

It looks to me as though the Home Office and its private contractors are cutting corners to save money, poorly-trained staff and inadequate security procedures.

It seems that the Government, in order to scrimp a few pounds, will be happy to pay at the polls.

cuffleyburgers

Contracts which involve giving access to confidential or sensitive information to outside contractors must ensure that encryption procedures are followed which are at least up to the same standard as the contracting government department.

In fact it is likely that most normally competent private sector firms' data handling will be more secure than the government; however the government's record in this respect of choosing normally competent private sector partners has not been conspicuously successful.

Failure to negotiate adequate contracts lies behind many of the government's most embarassing and costly blunders in recent years whether it be NHS computers, this one or even more egregiously in the PFI scandals in which in almost every case as far as can be determined, the resulting hospital or prison has cost more to build and costs more to run despite having a lower spec than a corresponding direct public sector build. This has cost the tax payer tens of billions and will continue to do so for decades.

Their has been a disgraceful lack of transparency in the managing of these contracts and whenever awkward questions are asked no reply has been forthcoming under the coverall excuse of comercial confidentiality.

So yes, the proximate responsibility lies with the company but some blame must go to the department.

I am reminded of the episode of Fawlty Towels when Basil got his cheapo builder to knock a doorway through a supporting wall. The proximate responsibility for not putting in a RSJ lies with Murphy, but Sybil was quite right to bash BAsil over the head.

Neither the Home Office nor Basil Fawlty emerge with their repuations unblemished.

albert hall

What does the Home Office mouth McNulty have to say about it?