Army should provide event security in future after G4S fiasco

The report from the Home Affairs Committee found that G4S was solely responsible for the shortfall in Olympic security staff after it failed to have all of 10,400 security guards it was contracted to supply for the Olympics trained and ready in time.

The report says that G4S's poor communication with Locog and its own staff meant senior management had "no idea how badly wrong their operation was going until it was too late to retrieve it." The information G4S provided to Locog is described as "at best unreliable, if not downright misleading".

It recommends the armed forces be considered as a security provider for major events in future, rather than a backup option, after army personnel had to be drafted in to address G4S’s shortfall.

The report also recommends G4S waive its £57 million management fee, as a gesture to the taxpayer that it regrets its actions. It also suggests the company compensate staff who were unable to work at the Olympics despite being trained, which G4S confirms it is doing.

Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Committee, said: "The largest security company in the world, providing a contract to its biggest UK client, turned years of carefully laid preparations into an eleventh hour fiasco.

"The data the company provided to the Olympic Security Board was at best unreliable, at worst downright misleading. Twenty-four hours before they admitted their failure, [G4S chief executive] Nick Buckles met with the Home Secretary and did not bother to inform her that they were unable to deliver on their contract, even though he knew about the shortfall a week before."

He added: "Their decision not to bid for Rio 2016 is the right one. The government should learn lessons from this experience and establish a register of high-risk companies that have failed in the delivery of public services."

A G4S spokesperson responded: "As explained by both G4S and Locog to the committee, the £57m "management fee" is not a profit. It relates substantially to real costs which have been incurred such as wages, property and IT expenditure. The final financial settlement is currently under discussion with Locog."

The statement added: "The company acknowledges and regrets the serious failing of not identifying the workforce shortfall at an earlier date. As soon as the company knew that it could not assure the full workforce numbers in the build up to the Games, the relevant people at Locog and the Home Office were informed."

Would the army be a good security supplier for large events? Comment below and let us know.

For more in-depth and print-only features, showcases and interviews with world-leading brands, don't miss the next issue of Event magazine by subscribing here.

Follow @louiseridley