Public Accounts CommitteeWritten evidence from G4S

During the hearing on Managing government suppliers on 25 November, the Chair referred to a Statutory Instrument relating to the contract for electronic monitoring:

Q74 Chair: ... [Buddi] has been trying to compete with the tagging on police services up and down the country. She cannot even enter the competition because we have a statutory instrument that defines the responsible officer for providing the tagging equipment. That statutory instrument states that the responsible officer has to be either G4S or Serco. In a statutory instrument laid down by us in Parliament, we are deliberately preventing what appears to be a perfectly bona fide good SME from competing.

G4S has responded to this point with the following:

There are three Statutory Instruments pertaining to G4S specifically (which also include Serco). I’ve included the links for each of them below:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2768/contents/made?text=G4S#match-1

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2950/contents/made?text=G4S#match-1

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2713/contents/made?text=G4S#match-1

As you’ll note, they are regarding the contracts we currently undertake, but will not be doing so from early 2014. The Statutory instruments basically outline which areas we are the licence holders for and which Serco hold the licence for—this SI would presumably change at the point of the contract being managed by another entity. They don’t relate to, as may have been suggested to Mrs Hodge, any rules meaning that we are guaranteed to win a contract.

27 November 2013

Prepared 13th March 2014