Our dear Peter hit the airwaves this morning. He should have kept silent. He was tasty on Today, and was more concerned with bashing the media for misinterpreting his and other ministers remarks, than in dealing with the issues.
But he did trip up. He spouts (I think I have got the words right):
I am told that the work was originally given to another sub-contractor using mostly British labour, but that this company didn't fulfil the contract.
That's why the contract was switched to an alternative European sub-contractor and suppler who of course drew on their permanent workforce.
Why was it switched to an alternative sub-contractor? What aspects of the contract were not fulfilled? Why wasn't the the original contract renegotiated? Are there not UK alternatives? Was the new contract put out to tender and procedures followed?
He should dealt with the principles rather than the specifics. He loves stirring the pot and has now left many questions unanswered.
Mandy has given this story new legs!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment