Interserve cleaner

This essay, on the scandal of public sector outsourcing in Britain, was my Observer column this week. (The column included also a short piece reflecting on the debate about the Christchurch terror attacks.) It was published in the Observer, 17 March 2019, under the headline ‘We scoffed at Grayling’s ‘ferries’ but his way is now a public service norm’.

Oh, how we laughed. Failing Grayling, the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, the Mr Bean of contemporary politics, had awarded a cross-Channel ferry contract to Seaborne, a company that had no ferries and had never run a ferry service. Six weeks later, the contract was torn up.

The trouble is, the laugh’s on us too. For it’s not just Grayling who’s failing. The Seaborne style of awarding contracts – never mind the competence, just get the signature – has long been the public sector norm for outsourced work. The result has been scandalous services and collapsing companies.

Consider Interserve. It’s another of those corporations, like Capita, Carillion and Serco, with bland names, barely visible to the public, but which have become a kind of shadow state, providing much of Britain’s essential public services.

Interserve’s projects include repairing motorways, refurbishing bus stations and upgrading sewers. It also runs ‘welfare to work’ programmes and is the biggest provider of probation services in England and Wales. On Friday, it went into administration after its shareholders rejected a rescue plan.

Interserve began life as the London and Tilbury Lighterage Company, a barge and dredging operator, before moving into housebuilding and construction after the Second World War and in the late 1990s into facilities management. After a series of name changes, it finally became Interserve in 2001, ready to exploit the lucrative new market for privatised public sector work.

The outsourcing of public services began as a Thatcherite policy in the late 1980s, became turbocharged under New Labour and was pushed further still by the coalition government after 2010. An Institute for Government report last year calculated that a third of government expenditure – £284bn – was disbursed to external suppliers handling everything from parking permits to immigration control to the maintenance of nuclear warheads.

But why should the same company be deemed capable of motorway construction and probation management, of sewer repairs and hospital catering? And why is this not as scandalous as a company with no ferries being awarded a ferry contract?

Interserve is not unique. Take Serco, which began life as the British arm of the US entertainment firm RCA. By the late 1980s it had changed its name and aggressively moved to take advantage of the market in government outsourcing. Within 25 years, it was running everything from out-of-hours GP services to asylum detention centres.

It’s not uncommon for companies to change strategy or seek new markets, but this usually involves having some expertise in the subject. When it comes to public service contracts, however, expertise appears to mean primarily the ability to win contracts. Serco’s ‘panache in the bidding process’, one account observed, allowed it to ‘beat out competition from specialist firms’.

Inevitably, this has led to a constant stream of debacles. From charging for the tagging of nonexistent criminals to accusations of neglect and sexual assault at Yarl’s Wood migrant detention centre, from allegations of data falsification in an out-of-hours GP service to disastrous work capability assessments, the one thing that outsourcing companies have never been able to outsource is the stench of scandal.

A decade ago, such companies were boasting about reaping the rewards of the financial crash. Paul Pindar, CEO of Capita, told the Financial Times that he’d be ‘deeply disappointed’ if the company did not double revenues from government contracts within five years. In fact, within a decade, Capita was knee-deep in debt and issuing profit warnings. Serco’s profits had already plummeted. Carillion collapsed. And now Interserve is in administration.

Government cuts may have opened up new markets, but they also squeezed profit margins. Combined with greed and overstretch and never-ending scandals, outsourcing companies have been forced into a ‘bankrupt’ business model of chasing new public sector contracts to make up for the razor-thin margins in the old ones.

Shareholders have seen assets disappear and creditors have lost money. But the real losers are NHS patients, benefits claimants, asylum detainees – and the tens of thousands of workers employed by such companies, often in gig-economy conditions.

It’s time we recognised that the policy of giving construction or facilities management companies power over health provision, welfare assessment or prisoners is as rational as awarding a ferry contract to a company that’s never ferried a bugger in its life.



The photo is of an Interserve cleaner; it’s a creative commons licence via the BBC (photographer unknown).


  1. The Snail

    Quite right – I could tell a few stories about this outsourcing fiasco – but not publically here!

  2. yandoodan

    To an American, this is simply baffling. We’ve been outsourcing nearly everything for generations with very few problems, especially when compared to government-run operations. Nearly always, the companies specialize, and competition is stiff. I don’t see how the British mess could come about except for corrupt relationships between the private providers and the politicians who ultimately control budgets and power.

  3. Patrick Ainley

    This is the model of the contracting state which has obtained since Thatcher in which responsibility is contracted out to agents for delivery while power contracts to the centre.

  4. Cable Strada

    The column included also a short piece

    I hope you’ll write much more on the Christchurch terror and issue a mea culpa for your own part (symbolic if not literal) in facilitating it.

    reflecting on the debate about the Christchurch terror attacks.

    Yes. And the debate proves that, in the progressive community, there is a clear consensus. The Christchurch terror had its roots in the manure of “free speech”. Among the victims of the terror, the consensus is even clearer:

    Letter: Muslim leaders condemn the Christchurch attack and call on authorities to increase efforts to combat Islamophobia

    […] The massacre of Muslims did not just begin with bullets fired from the barrel of Tarrant’s gun. Rather it was decades in the making: inspired by Islamophobic media reports, hundreds and thousands of column inches of hatred printed in the press, many Muslim-hating politicians and unchecked social-media bigotry.

    There is no nonsense about “free speech” among Muslims and other communities of colour. They know where it leads and they want it stopped. When Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Douglas Murray, Katie Hopkins and “Tommmy Robinson” have been prosecuted and jailed for their Islamophobia and racism, we will know that Britain has begun to shake off its toxic whiteness and move towards a decent progressive future.

    • You’re using the same logic as Geert Wildres did when he called for a ban on the Quran as propagating hate speech and as having been used by jihadis to justify their actions. So, yes, I will be writing something on this, and, no, it won’t be a mea culpa – far from it, I’ll be calling out the hypocrisy on all sides on this issue.

      One final point; This article is about Chris Grayling and public sector outsource. I know you like gatecrashing the comments to talk about entirely unrelated subjects. But from now on, I am restricting discussion to issues broadly related to the article at hand. When I write about Christchurch and the free speech debate you can pile in.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: