Your comment has what to do with this story?
If I might answer for the original poster, everything.
HPE leach jobs and skills from the public (and corporate) sector. For HPE to make money they have to operate at lower cost, so the usual "value" lever is to get rid of TUPE victims and heap their work on the increasingly small band that remain. Ultimately that's never enough, so the jobs get sent to crappy third world locations that provide poorer service and productivity, but do so cheaply per arse-on-seat.
The government's role in this is their idiotic role over decades of signing free trade deals without "balance of trade" clauses. So when DoH outsource payroll jobs to Steria, or DWP outsource IT to HPE, who then move them to South Africa, India or wherever, the UK jobs disappear, the demand for the administrative, systems and mangement skills reduces, and the exchequer lose employee and and employer payroll taxes.
When government, or a company use an offshore provider, they import the labour. When you import things, you have two options - export an equivalent amount of work, assets or services. Or just borrow and hope that the problem goes away, or rather that you'll have retired on a fat public sector pension before it all goes badly wrong. Guess which successive governments have done?
So that's why offshoring is mostly evil, and why government has a central role. At the very least, they should apply the same payroll taxes to imported labour as they foist on UK employers. If HPE were paying employer's NI, and obligated to pay a decent pension to offshore workers, and employ them under UK conditions, I suspect the financial case for offshoring would disappear.