Anyone but a fool, or: is that really what you want? Barnet Tory cuts, as the Open Library shuts ...

Mrs Angry tries very hard not to attend council meetings, if at all possible, very often, unless it is absolutely necessary, having run out of patience with what passes for the democratic process, in Broken Barnet: but sometimes turning up to the Town Hall is unavoidable, and last week's library committee was one of those unmissable events.

Wandering into the meeting room, it was immediately clear that something was wrong. 

Something was very wrong. 

As is usual these days, the public gallery was already graced with the presence of a number of senior officers from Capita, staking out the territory, but ... gone was the habitual, self evident sense of complacency and indifference that exudes from these people. No jokes, no eye contact, with Mrs Angry: they sat sulking in their places, silently, and, oh dear: thin lipped, and uncommunicative. 

Hmm. Well, the room was soon packed with members of the public, many of whom had attended the lobby outside the Town Hall, to show their fury at the library plans about to be 'debated' in the meeting.

Mrs Angry sat down at the front, checked through her papers, and then, feeling rather dehydrated, looked about, as usual, for the water dispenser. There wasn't one. 

There wasn't one at the last meeting, either. Odd. 

Well, then. The explanation for this, apparently, is that Capita has withdrawn the provision of water to members of the public, at meetings - to cut costs. No, really. 

It seems the endless payment of millions of pounds each month to Capita is not enough to cover the £6 cost of the water dispenser that has always been available at all meetings. 

Councillors and senior officers have lovely glass pitchers of water, on their table, but the residents of Broken Barnet, who pay for everything in the room, on the table, and rather a lot besides,, may not even have this basic provision. 

And in its small way, this gesture perfectly expresses the state of things here, in Broken Barnet: the grip that Capita has over the borough, the extraction of every last penny of profit from any opportunity: and the extent of indifference, bordering on contempt, for the residents who are paying the price of this contractual bondage. 

Water, water, everywhere, friends, but not a drop to drink, except for the senior officers of Broken Barnet, and a few councillors.

Funnily enough, although Capita now have their sweaty palms on just about every council service going, in Broken Barnet, they have  become awfully modest about their involvement here. In fact, the relationship with Capita has become the love that must not be named. The Barnet Vice, that dark, secret love between outsourcerer and the outsourced, the dominant partner, and the submissive one, is such to which no overt reference may be made. 

It was noticeable in the meeting that officers preferred to speak coyly of CSG, or the council, or other contractors like Vubis, or Infor, but sshh, nobody wanted to utter the name of ... Capita. 

Back to Library Cutter in Chief, Cllr Reuben Thompstone, who was still sporting a (non hipster) little twirly moustache, and that customary demeanour of his which inevitably reminds Mrs Angry of, well: a stuffed owl. 

Cllr Reuben Thompstone

And. He. Was. Speaking. In. Very. Clipped. Antipodean. Tones, As. Usual; chairing the meeting, attended by a cohort of supine Tory councillors, who barely spoke, and more or less refused to engage with members of the public who came to question the committee. 

Thompstone laid down his vision as to how the meeting was going to progress. There were 191 written public questions (the impertinence, but, look, only ten from Mrs Angry, ok?) and several people wanting to speak. Including Mrs Angry. We were given stern warnings about how this would be regulated. Mrs Angry was awfully scared.

First up: Barbara Jacobson, who hoped that all councillors had, like her, read all 600 pages of the report. She asked that every councillor present, who should have done this, to demonstrate their understanding of the implications of the contents by asking at least two intelligent questions. Intelligent questions? From a Tory councillor?

The Tory councillors looked at her as if she were deranged. Read all of the report? What on earth for? No need. Their decisions, after all, had already been written for them, hadn't they? Oh: no - no, Mrs Angry, not so - they stated at the meeting that they had not been whipped, and of course we believed them.

In truth, their craven silence, and uncomfortable shifting in their seats, throughout the meeting, might have given the impression that they had indeed had been subject to firm discipline, and that thought gave Mrs Angry a fleeting moment of unwholesome pleasure, until she woke up from her reverie, and remembered that there may really be no need to threaten a Tory councillor with punishment, as they are so institutionalised, they will do as they are told without any persuasion, or flick of the whip.

Still, it's a happy thought, isn't it readers?

Shiny, shiny, shiny boots of leather, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet ...

Resident and campaigner Keith Martin tried to punish them in another way now, with his rendition of a song: not by the Velvet Underground, but from the rather more decorous 'Iolanthe', specifically the following lines:

When in that House M.P.'s divide, 
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too, 
They’ve got to leave that brain outside, 

And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

Wasted on them, Keith, muttered Mrs Angry, with a sigh, as he began his recital. 

Tory members preparing for Full Council, in Broken Barnet, as imagined by Gilbert O'Sullivan

Our culture averse Tories, sadly, none of whom show any signs of owning a brain, with or without a cerebellum, wouldn't know the difference between Gilbert & Sullivan, Gilbert O'Sullivan, and/or Gilbert & George.

Councilllor Dan Thomas, who labours, if that is the appropriate term, under the grave misapprehension that the voters of Broken Barnet, longing for the good old days when his pal Brian Coleman was the Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden, will rush to the ballot box in May and vote for him, rather than Andrew Dismore, sat upright throughout most of the proceedings, like a waxwork, unblinking, rigid with fear that he might accidentally say something memorable, which Mrs Angry would hear, and write down in her notebook. Shame. No need to worry, John Thomas: nothing identifiable as an intelligible comment issued forth, according to the notes taken.

Resident Maria Nash, who uses a wheelchair, came to the table now, and attempted to explain to the committee the terrible impact on her, and all other disabled users, if they impose the so called 'technology enabled library' system on our service. 

'Technology Enabled Library', or TEO, also refers to 'Tory Emasculated (Non) Library': a building with a few books in, that used to be a library, but now runs with no members of staff present - at all. At least until falling attendance gives the council the chance to shut it completely, and sell off the freehold.

The model that Barnet wants to use is 'Open+™', run by a company called Bibliotheca. (Not sure why they have put my initials on the copyright, although obviously the fees will be very welcome). 

What is open about the open library, Mrs Angry, you may be asking? 

Erm, well: not much.

In fact these 'libraries' are 'open', only in the sense of being ... well, you know .... 'shut'.

Shut to every adult without a pin number to operate the doors, or in need of assistance to gain access, and shut to every child. Every child, under 15. 

Or: open in the sense too of 'Paris, Open City': giving up all opposition to an invading enemy, and letting them enter, in the hope of limiting casualties, in the war against public services.

You must let yourself in to the unstaffed library, through electronically operated doors, and a pin number. 

You must rely for your security on a CCTV camera. 

You must answer your own questions, at the unstaffed counter. 

And if you need to use the loo, hard luck. There won't be one. 

Oh dear: this may well lead to the sort of 'unpleasantness' on the carpet that so horrifies Cllr Helena Hart, but there you, go: serves her right.

Maria patiently pointed out the effect all this would have on those with physical or learning disabilities - or both. 

Physical access will be difficult for anyone with such needs, and once in the library, without staff present, many learning disabled residents, perhaps with autism, or similar difficulties, will struggle to use the facilities provided - such as they will be, in the new Tory library era.

Mrs Angry's turn to speak. Of course Cllr Thompstone, whenever Mrs Angry addresses a committee in such circumstances, sits there bristling with impatience, looking forward to interrupting her, and hoping to try to cut her off as soon as possible, but unluckily for him this time, Mrs Angry made sure her most aggravating points were ticked off early on, and the speech timed to end before the standard Thompstonian measurement of freedom of expression (ie so grudging as to be barely calculable) ran out.

Over the last few years, it’s become increasingly obvious that the policies of Barnet Council are driven not by our elected representatives, in the course of an open democratic process, but by an unaccountable administration led by senior officers, and the legions of private consultants and agencies whose fees you so happily endorse, whilst lecturing us on the need for ‘austerity’, and endless cuts in local services.

Anyone but a fool now sees that the massive range of outsourcing of the One Barnet programme was a costly mistake, meant to bring savings, but leeching away millions of pounds in extra charges.

You were so easily persuaded there was no other choice but to become a commissioning council, and an in house option for the One Barnet process unthinkable, because we needed an upfront £16 million investment in IT from Capita.

You then discovered that we, the taxpayers of Barnet, would have to give Capita £16 million for IT. 

Here we are, three years into the contractual agreement with Capita, and in the middle of a catastrophic systems crash which has brought our library service to its knees, and lost more than two years’ worth of data. There appears to be no sign of any independent investigation of this, which is grossly irresponsible.

The IT crash has of course shut down your ‘open’ library pilot, and exposed the disastrous level of risk to all Capita run systems which such a cockeyed scheme would present. 

Some questions:

Why was the open library pilot scheme risk assessment not put before you last year, when you were first considering the options for consultation? 

Why are you yet again sanctioning a huge expenditure of capital on implementing your officers’ plans, in the pretext of making ‘savings’?

Why did reports put before this council continue to assert, despite repeated denial, that unstaffed libraries are the ‘standard approach’ in ‘Scandinavia’? 

The reply to my question today proves that this is a latterday Nordic myth, unsubstantiated by evidence, created by those with interests in selling this system to a rightfully sceptical market. 

The truth is that unstaffed libraries have never been used in any context comparable to that proposed by your officers. 

For good reason.

You are determined to replace library staff with volunteers, tell residents to look after their own parks, and vulnerable people to beg charities to provide them with meals on wheels, rather than the council. 

You’ve handed over control of council services to a private contractor, sat back with your feet up, and effectively made yourselves redundant.

Yet rather than take a cut in your own allowances, and volunteer your own services, you continue to rake in incomes, from us, the residents you represent - for what exactly? 

To rubber stamp the decisions made by officers and consultants, based on recommendations whose evidence passes without challenge, or proper scrutiny? 

You seem blissfully unaware of the political damage you are doing to the (admittedly minimal) chance of electing Cllr Thomas and Zac Goldsmith in May, and naturally I don’t give a damn about that, although you should.

But if you have any sense, or conscience, you need to stop here, now, each of you, and think very carefully: what is my duty to the residents of this borough? 

And who is in charge of Barnet, you, or the officers you employ, on our behalf? 

And if you have any concerns at all, you have only one option: throw out these recommendations, and act in the interests of the people of Barnet, and not the interests of private profit, or the secret agenda of your own senior management team: leave our libraries alone …  or live with the consequences.


Applause from a mirthful, public gallery, packed out to the back of the room, but - not one question from a councillor.

It was a waste of time, of course, to try to appeal to a Tory member, and his or her sense of duty to the residents they allegedly represent. Their first loyalty: their only loyalty, is to themselves, and their group.

Next up was the best speech of all, from eleven year old Heval, who attends Fortismere school, in East Finchley. He sat at the committee table with his mum, and tried to explain to the dull witted Tories why libraries are so vital for the well being of school children and young students. He has been taking his seven year old sister to the library: if the Tory plans are approved, he and his sister will both be barred from the unstaffed libraries. We won't be able to go and get books to read, he said. 

Is that really what you want, I ask?

They stared at him, across the table.

The Chair, Reuben Thompstone, having been too scared to ask any sensible questions of the adult speakers, now decided to pick on an eleven year old boy. 

He observed that Heval attended Fortismere. They had a school library, had they not?

Yes, said Heval. Which now has reduced hours too.

Ah. 

(Note to Reuben Thompstone. Don't try to patronise the children of Broken Barnet, son: and never ask a question, in committee, as in court, to which you do not already know the answer to be supportive to your own agenda ...)

Public questions next: you can see the written responses here: and unfortunately for the Tory councillors and their senior officers, there was time for some supplementary questions based on some of the very interesting information that had been provided, or, in the tradition of Broken Barnet, not provided, but forming a telling negative shape, and the faintest hint of a dog in the night that did not bark - or a failing library system that (apparently) did not alert those tasked with maintaining the IT management ...

Mrs Angry's questions were on two subjects, which are of course inextricably linked: in regard to the 'open', unstaffed library model, and the calamitous, library IT crash, under the management of Capita, an event which has, in one fell swoop, shut down the pilot 'open' scheme, as well as lost two years worth of data.

The library plan now under consideration is based on many assumptions - unproven assumptions - and in some cases: false assumptions. 

One of the latter category is this: an enthusiastic support for the unstaffed library model, based on a claim, repeated in the earlier reports that went to councillors, that it is the 'standard approach' for libraries in Scandinavia.

Mrs Angry has always been suspicious of this assertion, and has recently conducted her own research into the subject, aided by contacts in the library profession, before asking the Barnet officers who present the reports to the library committee to provide evidence of this claim. (Note to Reuben Thompstone: this is how to ask questions, see? Do your homework.) 

They could not provide such evidence, as you will read.

There is no evidence of a 'standard approach' of this sort, in 'Scandinavia', as of course - there is no such thing.

In the latest version of reports to committee, it is now stated, Appendix F, 'Context':

Whilst use of the system is relatively new in the UK, Open+™ has been widely adopted throughout Scandinavia to extend library opening hours beyond those that can be staffed.

Widely adopted? 

And look: here is the response to Mrs Angry's question, demanding evidence: letting the cat out of the bag. The background information on 'open libraries' was provided, as as Mrs Angry had already worked out, by a company wanting to seal the deal, ie Bibliotheca.

And the claims in the reports going to members, written by senior officers in a flight of fantasy based on that information, are as firmly based on reality ... as any Nordic myth. Less so, possibly. More of a Nordic Noir work of fiction, in fact. Fact? Let's see what Barnet/Capita's spin is: 

According to Bibliotheca ... 'the company has installed 205 open+ libraries in Scandinavia'.

Denmark has around 180 'open libraries'. 125 supplied by Bibliotheca.

Sweden, according to Barnet, has 41 public libraries. (presumably they mean with 'open technology').

Finland: 25 public libraries.

Norway: 14 libraries. 

Hmm. Well, are you only relying on one company's information? Are there any others? Hard to identify, if so.

Now let's look at Mrs Angry's evidence.

Denmark has some 'technology enabled libraries' in what even Bibliotheca admits are largely 'remote and rural communities'. Got that, Tory councillors? Of course Denmark also has a completely different culture, and a notably low crime rate. 

And it seems that the reason for the deployment of these 'technology enabled' village branches is largely related to the concerns that Danish politicians have about the depopulation of such isolated communities. 

Danish libraries, however, also have experimented with what is known as 'staff intensive' libraries: the absolute reverse of the TEOs deployed in remote areas. This was a very interesting programme, which saw an increase in library membership. 

And recently a Danish librarians' representative pointed out in a statement to library staff in Barnet that any use of 'open' libraries in their country was only as an enhancement of a well resourced service, NOT a replacement.

Sweden: again, as in all of Scandinavia, here we have a rural context absolutely not comparable to a highly populated metropolitan area of London. 

Sweden has a total of  1300 public libraries. Bibliotheca, according to Barnet's officers, although the requested evidence was not supplied, claims to have only 41 - a very small number. So when Councillor Reuben Thompstone told the press last year that 'open libraries' were being successfully used in Sweden, he might perhaps have been more 'open' himself, and added 'on a small scale, and in an utterly different context ...'

Norway? Odd: the response from Barnet says there are 14. No evidence or details. Mrs Angry believes there are 800 libraries in the country as a whole. We may note the response markedly does not use the term 'public' here, so one might guess these are perhaps university libraries, or similar?

Oh, and Finland: 

Finland? According to Barnet, Bibliotheca claims there are 25 'open' branches here. No evidence or details were provided, and Mrs Angry could only find references to three small 'open' libraries.

The total number of public libraries in Finland is 898, so, again: a minimal number. Probably because the public library system in Finland holds a place of great significance in that country's culture: with very high rates of use, and excellent standards of service, which undoubtedly is directly connected to the fact that Finland has the second highest literacy rates in the world (the UK is only 44th, in the same list) ... 

Where public library use is encouraged, supported, and properly funded and staffed, literacy thrives.

In a carefully worded departure to the claims made in the previous reports -(repeated despite contradiction from campaigners) - it was admitted in the papers put to this committee that the 'open' model is only 'a feature' of libraries in 'Scandinavia'. 

As Mrs Angry pointed out, a feature of a library might be anything, from the installation of Swedish pine shelving, to a lovely rug from IKEA: hardly the same as implying unstaffed libraries have been used as a 'standard approach' throughout the entire Nordic area, is it?

Another feature of Scandinavian libraries, apparently - (or what turns up if you foolishly google 'Swedish Librarian' ...)

Mrs Angry asked the senior officer present to explain the repeated use of inaccurate information previously put before councillors tasked with making a decision of such immense significance. She would not, or could not, give a response. 

There is a very worrying trend in Barnet now of information that is inaccurate, or incomplete, being put before elected members, or not put before councillors, when making decisions, or even making decisions instead of the elected members. The presentation of inaccurate information may not be deliberate, but it is certainly misleading.

Consider the example of the Abbotts Depot issue, when information on the purchase price was withheld from members; the failure to brief councillors on Capita's 'Project Chicago'; and of course the very interesting matter, mentioned earlier, of the £16 million 'upfront' capital investment, that members thought was coming from, rather than to, Capita. Oh, and remember the decision made by senior management to change the model of one of the massive Capita contracts to a Joint Venture, without consulting the Tory leader?

We have now seen that the entire basis on which the unstaffed library model was promoted is false. There has been no comparable use of unstaffed libraries in any metropolitan context similar to Barnet, on anything like the scale and scope of this mad proposal. 

To launch a scheme of this sort knowing so little of the true level of risk is grossly irresponsible.

To proceed with the launch of a scheme of this sort in circumstances such as we have now in Barnet, in a library service brought to the point of breakdown by such a serious systems fail, is lunacy.

It was admitted at the CELS committee meeting that the full impact of the IT crash, in terms of the implications of level of risk to the unstaffed model, had not yet been properly assessed. 

Only in Tory Barnet would councillors hear this, and still approve the deployment of this idiotic idea. 

From right, Tory members Helena Hart, Alison Cornelius, Dan Thomas, and Bridget Perry

And although they kept as quiet as possible, then passed the buck and referred the vote to Full Council, they did so knowing that the group as a whole will do as they are told and pass the proposals, avoiding personal responsibility in favour of a collective guilt, which they hope will be forgotten by their residents.

One thing Mrs Angry can promise you, Councillors, is this - they won't forget, and we will remind residents at every opportunity of what you have done, and failed to do, in response to the planned destruction of our library service.

As for the other issue, the IT crash: well, what an interesting story lies beneath this one ...

Early on in the meeting, Mr John Hooton, currently Barnet's Chief Operating Officer, and Director of Finance, sat at the table and in a demonstration of masterly understatement, observed that the library system's backups were 'not as robust as they could have been ...'

Yep. That is certainly true.

And whose fault was that?

Also sitting at the table, readers, was a nice, fresh faced young man, looking rather like one of those clean cut Mormon missionaries who knock on your door, keen to invite you to join them in prayer. Who was he? 

Oh: the new head of IT for Capita/Barnet? 

New? Yes. He told Mrs Angry in the corridor, when she trapped him by the gents, and he had no option but to say something, anything, in order to escape, that he had only been in the job for about three weeks.

Oh again. Mrs Angry tried to think of anything significant that had happened, about three weeks ago, that might have coincided with his arrival in Broken Barnet, but could only call to mind the library IT fail, which of course could have no connection at all. Could it?

Anyway, the line from officers at the table was - oh, the library thing? Meh. Old system, you know, bound to happen. Nothing to do with us. And they were 'very confident' that the system (or 'a' system) would be back up, after a month, on April Fool's Day. Most appropriate.

The irreplaceable data from the last two years appears to have disappeared without trace, but, you know ... these things happen, and anyway, it must have been someone else's fault.

Erm: you sure about that?

We pay you to monitor the system, and ensure that the proper backups were in place. Don't we? Can you prove you did this? Come on: let's see the evidence, then.

What's that? You think the proof is lost in the corruption of two years worth of data? Goodness me, how unfortunate.

One of Mrs Angry's readers has made the following observations in regard to the IT fail:

"Capita, as I understand it, are basically being paid to host the service,  for which the costs are: housing and powering the machines it runs on, and the admin surrounding managing it, i.e.

• performing backups

• monitoring disk and memory usage to make sure it’s all within limits

• detecting and responding to alerts or anomalies

They have failed spectacularly in these admin tasks, begging the question what exactly are they are being paid for?"

A reasonable question, you might think: as is another point he makes:

"If the changes performed on the system had such disastrous consequences, why were they not first trialled in a pre-production environment?"

One would hope that the Labour leadership, if not the dopey Tory group, would push for these and other fundamental questions to be answered, in a 'robust' and independent investigation. 

Over to you, then, councillors. No, Mrs Angry isn't holding her breath.

Still, there was some good news, in the light of the crash. The new IT head let slip that, in view of the IT 'problem' for which they appear to be responsible anyway, Capita had graciously updated Barnet to 'Platinum Level' security.

You what? 

You can imagine the chortling in the public gallery, and the bemused expressions of the Tory councillors, and the strained look on the face of Mr Hooton, as it was explained that (Capita, sshh) ran a multi-tiered level of response to such crises: Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze. 

What level were we on before, at the time of the IT crash? Base metal of some sort, it would seem. But in the process of some sort of outsourced alchemy, the wizards at Capita have now successfully transmuted a handful of secret elements, wrapped up in the commercially sensitive papers of the 8,000 page contract into, no, not precious gold, but the purest Platinum.

It is clear is that Capita do not intend to shoulder the blame for what has happened.

But apart from the implications for the library proposals, lost in this mess somewhere is the question of costs, and penalties. 

Will Capita be allowed to escape without penalty, if they deny full responsibility for this crash? 

Who will pay for the upgrade in IT systems, lost revenue, and for the replacement of any stock that may go missing during this period, and the cost of replicating, or trying to, the data lost, a process we are told will take up to six months?

Even if Capita accepts some of the burden, will that ultimately be raked back from us, the residents of Broken Barnet?

What are the implications for the management of other systems? What would happen if say, the council tax collection system failed? Or social care data irretrievably corrupted?

Is there going to be an independent, forensic investigation of the cause of the crash, or are our Tory councillors, as usual, going to accept the word of officers, and do nothing?

It's been a particularly bad week for Capita, in Barnet. 

Not just the library thing - a story in the local Times highlighting the conflict of interest evident in this company running the planning department, and at the same time assisting would be developers with their applications, alleging that:

'The firm’s architects sit just yards away from colleagues who rubber-stamp the decisions'. 

You can see for yourself exactly how much of a problem there might be in dealing with the extent of such potential risks, if you cast your eye over this Capita Conflicts of Interest Register from 2015 ...

Barnet claims that there are 'walls' in place to ensure probity throughout the process of planning applications. Whether you find that assurance convincing ... is up to you.

When making the three minute speech, and stating that the Tories knew now that the Capita contracts were a costly mistake, Mrs Angry was acutely aware of the lack of any sense of denial emanating from the Conservative end of the table. 

They know they've been had, but now the problem is that they think they cannot admit it, because of the political damage that would be done. 

What they fail to see is the political and financial disaster that will ensue if they fail to act now, to hold Capita to account, and allow them to continue, unchecked, screwing every penny out of us as our services are outsourced into a state of terminal decline, and fall. 

Sanctioning the approval of the library plans, in the aftermath of the IT crash, at this stage, with no full assessment of the implications, would be utter folly, and grossly irresponsible - irrational, even, and laying them open to legal challenge.

It will also, from a political view, be high risk, from the point of view of Tory aspirations in the May elections, as the impact of the library cuts - and the dramatic failure of the library IT system - will be fresh on the minds of voters. 

If the Tories had any sense at all, they would seize the opportunity, and use the pretext of the IT crash to stall the adoption of the proposals. 

They might even use the penalties they should impose on Capita, in the light of any proof of responsibility for the crash, to avoid the proposed changes, and win back some support from the electorate. 

The alternative will be, whatever spin they put on it, the virtual destruction of our library system, and the removal of the right to access to libraries, and information, and professional support, from the least advantaged children and the most vulnerable residents of this borough.

So if you are a Tory councillor, and you are reading this, please stop and think. As young Heval asked you last week: 

Is that really what you want?