Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond has today announced that the MoD intends to take forward work to transfer Defence Equipment and Support into a Government Owned Contractor Operated entity or GOCO.
This announcement was made to by a written Ministerial Statement in the House of Commons, on that day that the House breaks for the summer, thus avoiding any debate on the issue.
Further value for money assessments of the GOCO option over the other option of an Executive Non Departmental Public Body (ENDPB) will continue over the summer, after which the GOCO option would be the subject of a full investment appraisal where it would be tested against a full value for money benchmark or public sector comparator.
Our union is opposed to transferring DE&S into a GOCO operation. We believe that the problems of defence acquisition and support come mainly from poor decision making by Ministers, who have failed over time to get a grip of the equipment programme.
As launched under our Fair Deal in Defence campaign our objectives are -
· To give job security for all civilian defence workers. To give the best support to the front line, we need a period of certainty for defence workers and that means no imposed redundancies or relocations.
· Where the trade unions have identified savings e.g. £100m in FATS contract, these savings must be offset against headcount reductions.
· To stop the ideological move to privatise defence services and review all previous transfers of work including all the defence PFI contracts that we are tied into for 30 or 40 years..
· To get the proper level of consultation on all aspects of activities that affect the working lives of staff. The appropriate level of facility time should be provided for this.
· Agreement with the department that members will not work out of grade or cover work from vacant posts.
· Equality of opportunity and a respect for diversity in all MoD activities.
· The above principles to be replicated across private sector areas of defence.
We will be supporting the construction of a robust value for money benchmark which builds upon the emerging Interim Structure to become the best that DE&S can achieve remaining in-house and seeking the support of interested members to work on developing that value for money benchmark, to ensure that all possible in-house improvements and efficiencies are captured.
Value for Money can be achieved in-house and trade union input is critical to that achievement.
There are probably a few options to take to deal with the GOCO proposals/intentions.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe PCS members working in DE&S have fully debated the many options. I believe there is a case for a mini-conference of Branches who have members who work for DE&S to discuss and decide PCS Defence Sector policy.
In the current climate, the chances of maintaining (and fighting for) the status quo, I don't think is an option. The problem with supporting the construction of a VFM is that it plays right into the hands of so called efficiencies regardless whether that is achieved by an in-house option or otherwise.
It is also probably true that the climate is not right for trying to achieve a workers democratically led co-operative business model.
But I do think, there would be some mileage in trying to achieve some degree of workers ownership in the new business model. Is the Govt. serious about the Big Society? We can exploit the coalitions weaknesses to achieve some workers ownership - as with the John Lewis model, that so many Liberal Democrats seem to like. At least it would be a good starting point that can be changed more favourably for a true co-operative at a later stage.
Come on PCS, show some true leadership and imagination rather than simply trot out the old failed policies of the past.
I can't see the government allowing employees to "share" some of the nine billion pound per annum equipment programme; even if the government do subsidise their G4S friends by some 20,000 pounds per absent security post filled by MOD staff.
ReplyDeleteThis GOCO thing is obviously a stitch-up - the original ministerial submission didn't even include an attempt at a proper cost benefit analysis let alone an investment appraisal (which is meant to be the decision-making tool!). The decision was made long ago that the "problem" is in DE&S not in the constantly-moving requirements and altered government objectives.