Barnet Libraries' 'Watergate': another privatised cock up?

Update Tuesday:

No further response from the Chief Executive, so I have now written to Tory leader, Councillor Richard Cornelius.


Updated Monday morning: 

Mrs Angry has written to the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Broken Barnet, to ask why he had wrongly claimed no legionella traces had been found in any Barnet Libraries. He has immediately replied that it was his 'team' - presumably his own senior officers, or Capita, or both -  who had told him that was the case:

I am looking into this now. I previously received assurances from my team that no traces of Legionella had been found in any of our libraries and from my perspective this assurance still stands.


I will investigate this immediately and get back to you as soon as possible.

In a couple of weeks time, the new model Barnet library service will begin - a once magnificent, beacon status, value for money service, one of the best in the UK, now slashed to pieces, battered and bruised by your Tory councillors, and left dying on the ground. 

In a few more years, the worst affected remains of the service - a handful of lucrative potential property developments - will be closed, due to lack of use, thanks to the new regime - and put up for sale, by Capita, on behalf of your council. Kerrching!

In the meanwhile, four libraries have been ruthlessly disposed of, and handed over to 'volunteer' enterprises to run. I say run: this will be a farcical replacement for a properly managed library, with a managers with no library qualifications, and an unknown quota of untrained, unpaid, and inexperienced volunteers attempting to take over the duties of professional librarians and skilled library staff, half of whom have lost their jobs. 

Already the cracks are showing: it seems one of these faux library enterprises, Childs Hill, will not be bothering to open up on Saturdays, for example.

The Tory councillors who are responsible for this act of corporate vandalism, are pretending they are listening to residents, and keeping open 14 libraries. That could only be true if you hammer out the meaning of what a library is to the shape of the utter travesty they are imposing on our service. 

Not only have we lost four professionally run branches to a bunch of amateur ventures using the idea of a library as some sort of outlet for their own purposes, the loss of staff now means much of the new library opening hours will now comprise only DIY access to unstaffed, empty rooms, watched over - when manned, by a CCTV camera - and barred to any children who may need to visit, either to borrow books, or use study space. Study space, of course, and the book stock have been ruthlessly cut, as well as staffing, and the buildings handed over to Capita to manage. 

Over recent years the physical condition of Barnet's library buildings - to any user familiar with the branches over a long period of time - has visibly deteriorated: the fabric of the buildings, and the internal decoration, fading, peeling, mouldering: the perfect metaphor for the state of public services, in our borough.

This of course is in line with the general policy of our Tory council's neglect of any service in which they see no value, (other than the potential value of development), and a neglect which will in itself help to deter residents from using that service. A strategy that makes it so much easier to produce evidence to support proposals to 'rationalise', outsource, or otherwise divest the authority of responsibility for what should be a core function of local government.

Years of decline in standards of management of ageing premises - and even some quite new - inevitably leads to problems. Problems which have the potential to pose a risk to those working on those premises: and to those visiting them.

Over the last few months, rather worryingly, some of us have been receiving reports about rumoured problems with the water supply in Barnet libraries. 

That these reports were from a number of different sources, and repeatedly, and persistently, over a sustained period of time lent a certain amount of credibility to them. And then there was worrying information, closer to home. 

Two family members work part time in Barnet Libraries, and one came home from work one day last month, rather upset, and concerned, as staff had been told not to use the water supply. 

No explanation, no alternative drinking water provided - and if you were worried about using the loo? Go across the road & use the ones at the supermarket. 

Oh, and there were rumours about  - legionella.

Mrs Angry, as you might imagine, was very Angry. And very worried, as another family member working at another branch, with equally antiquated plumbing, has a health condition which is vulnerable to any risk from any sort of water contamination - and staff had received no information, or guidance.

(Mrs Angry is also fairly well acquainted with the risks of Legionnaires, having been tested for it a few years ago, on her gp's gloomy insistence, on developing pneumonia after a stay in a hotel during the Labour conference ... )

First thing on Monday morning, she sent an urgent email to a library manager, which was ignored, so was then redirected to the Chief Executive, John Hooton, asking what was going on, and to demand action. A number of questions were put:


1. Is it true that there have been checks for legionella in any Barnet libraries?

2. If so, when?

3. If so, what are the results?

4. Is it true that members of staff have had to be tested for Legionnaires disease?

5. If so, were any tests positive?

6. Can you confirm that there have been no concerns about legionella at Burnt Oak, Edgware, and Grahame Park libraries?

7. Why are staff not able to use the water at North Finchley?

8. Have North Finchley, Church End, East Finchley and Hendon libraries had their water supply systems checked recently? Are my family members safe working there?

9. Do you have a risk assessment scheme for legionella? Who is responsible for its implementation? 


10. How often have the appropriate checks and preventative actions been taken over the last five years?

In the course of a series of emails, some responses were given to some of these questions: and some of those responses now, after making Freedom of Information requests, would appear to be ... untrue.

Despite assurances to the contrary, legionella was detected in at least one library (now closed to the public), and there were not only raised TVC levels in some branches (including the one where one family member worked) - another branch had a bacterial contamination.

If any staff were informed of these results, it was done in secret, and the wider group of staffed not told, or screened for those who might be at higher risk, an action a responsible employer might be expected to undertake. 

In the FOI responses, six libraries appear to have had no test results. This apparent omission was immediately queried, but - no reply yet.

So: either Capita has failed to provide them for the FOI response, by error, or withheld them on purpose - or there were no tests for those other libraries, in the last twelve months. 

And odd, isn't it, that two of the libraries tested (though no proof of North Finchley) had this done around the time of closure, due to the cuts, (for 'modification', in the case of NF) rather than when open and used by staff - and the public?

Barnet's new Chief Executive, John Hooton, left of Tory leader Richard Cornelius

Let's see what the Chief Executive had to say: here is some of the latter correspondence: redacted to remove personal details: (my emphasis in red).

Mr Hooton:

I have still not received a proper response to the questions I put to you and Ms X in regard to the water supply in libraries ...

If the council refuses to give immediate reassurance about the safety of the water supply in library buildings, and for its employees, frankly that is deplorable. 

If I don't receive the information I asked for without any further delay, I will be obliged to take appropriate action elsewhere.


Hooton, John 
Feb 9

Theresa,

I apologise for the delay in responding to you on this. I would like to reassure you around the risk of contracting Legionnaires disease and the concerns that you have raised in respect of libraries.

To begin with, it is important to note that to be at risk of contracting Legionnaires disease, staff and others would need to be exposed to high counts of the legionella bacteria in a mist form and inhaled into the lungs (for example from air conditioning units), and that you cannot contract legionnaires disease from drinking water or washing hands. No such risks have been identified in our libraries as part of our testing. However, I will explain what testing has taken place.

We carry out regular checks on all water services in all Council owned and controlled buildings in Barnet in line with legislation and codes of practice. This is referred to as the Normal Cyclical Maintenance regime. Once a year samples are taken from the water services systems and the samples are then assessed in laboratory conditions.  Should there be any concerns raised then more frequent tests and sampling are undertaken along with immediate remedial works in line with the codes of practice. There is on-going monitoring and testing of the water system services throughout the year.

There are no positive legionella results in any of our libraries. When tested, a small number of outlets (taps) showed some slightly elevated Total Viable Counts (TVC).  A TVC is a generic name for material such as bacteria (excluding Legionella), yeast, or mould. Any measures taken are strictly preventative only; at no point have any staff or visitors to the library been at risk.

When a positive sample is received, recommendations and arrangements are made with the respective site in line with the latest regulations and codes of practice. This includes taking the affected outlets out of service and cleaned in line with recommended codes of practice, then retested. If elevated TVC counts are still recorded after the preventative measures are introduced then the system would be cleaned, descaled and disinfected.

At North Finchley specifically, staff can use the water in all but one of the outlets, which was taken out of service as a precautionary measure while it was cleaned. Resampling is being undertaken before bringing it back into use.


Kind regards

John Hooton
Chief Executive
London Borough of Barnet



Feb 10

to John Hooton

Thank you for your reply, but I am afraid it does not fully address the concerns raised.

Legionnaires Disease may theoretically be contracted from any form of water vapour: in other words wherever hot water is available for use. I note that for example in 2015, a driving test centre was closed after Legionella was found in the water supply - clearly the same type of use of water posing similar risk to staff and the public as any library workplace.

You say 'there are no positive results': does that mean that there never have been?

But this is not just about the risk of legionella: to have bacterial contamination found in at least three libraries, and for staff not to have been informed is simply not acceptable ... The council has a duty of care to identify any risk to staff health and safety. At no time have staff been told of the reason for the taps now being taped off: this is grossly irresponsible, especially when staff may have health problems, or be pregnant.

You refer to 'cyclical testing'. 

Why was such testing only done at NF library immediately before its closure for 'modification', rather than earlier when staff were exposed to risk? 

Please confirm that Church End, East Finchley and Hendon libraries have also been recently tested, and supply the dates on which this was done, so that we can be sure my family members are not working in an environment where the water supply may pose a risk to their health.


Hooton, John 
Feb 10


Theresa,

To come back on these points:

Firstly around water vapour, legionella doesn't survive in temperatures over 60 degrees, and water boils at 100 degrees, so I am assured that any vapour from water will not have any risk of legionella. As I mentioned, risk can exist for things like air conditioning units, but this is not the situation here.

There are no recorded cases of positive tests for legionella. The team has reviewed records over the past four years.

In terms of the risk to staff and staff being informed. Occasionally low levels of bacteria will be found in water testing. I am assured that the levels found pose no risk to the health of staff and the public. We would only notify staff where a risk exists.


In terms of testing at Church End, Hendon and East Finchley, I can confirm that these were all tested 6 weeks ago with no issues arising.

First of all to note that Mr Hooton's comments on water vapour are interesting, but I think somewhat questionable. If legionella traces in water taps are not any danger to health, why is it necessary to test for such, and take action if found? And it was found, in Grahame Park, in June, and then again later.

Mrs Angry decided to carry out her own sampling process, comparing the level of accuracy in responses from Chief Executives to that of Capita officers, testing undertaken on the same day, and delivered, via the Freedom of Information Act, to her laboratory for analysis.

Q: Please give me full details of all tests of water supply and plumbing systems
in Barnet Libraries during the last twelve months.

Response: Please see the attached copies of water sampling certificates. The dates of sampling
are contained on the certificates. The tests are for Legionella, E Coli, Coliforms and
Total Viable Counts. The tests were undertaken by HSL and conducted by an
independent laboratory. The tests were taken on behalf of Capita CSG Building
Services Team.

Q: Please tell me if any members of staff or public have reported illness related
to library buildings, or have reported as testing positive for Legionnaires
disease. You may of course redact personal names, or details covered by
FOIA.

Response: There have been no positive tests for Legionnaires disease amongst staff members

or the public and no evidence of any illness connected to our library buildings

No positive tests. Were there any tests? Negative ones? If so, how widely were staff members screened? And why?

The results returned, with alarming evidence of corporate contamination, over and beyond the level of credibility acceptable to Mrs Angry: with some libraries mysteriously missing, and an alarming contradiction of the assurance given by the Chief Executive regarding legionella:

The microbiology results in red, says a discreet warning note at the bottom of the page 'appear to be out of specification. ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED'.

Another test in September:

Whether or not legionella traces pose a risk to health, at any given temperature, leaves the question, unanswered, about bacterial contamination of water, which most certainly can cause serious problems to anyone, let alone someone elderly, in poor health, with low immunity, or pregnant - and in this case the positive count was in a women's WC.

TVC/aerobic colony counts - 'total viable counts' of live bacteria - indicate a level of potential for risk to health from poor water hygiene - there are no statutory limits but there is guidance - and regular testing is meant to be used as a warning system to prevent serious contamination of water supplies.

Among the FOI results, which appear edited, there is a 'Warning and /or Out of Specification Report' for the staff kitchen, in regard to 'coliforms', from a test at the beginning of February.

Other tests show positive results - although presumably at a level that did not require informing staff:

In January, the men's WC cold water test at Edgware library showed a level of 29 under Total Coliforms, 94 for TVC at 37 degrees C, and 25, at 22 degrees. 

East Finchley's second floor kitchenette in January had a TVC level of 202 - for some reason no results given for the staff WC levels.

Golders Green staff kitchen in January also had TVC levels of 37 (37 degrees) and 14 (22 degrees).

Hendon had a test, it seems, in January, possibly, from a sample submission form - but no results disclosed. And we don't know the results from five other library premises.

To put these results into some sort of perspective, here is an explanation from one water testing company, Bywater.co.uk: my emphasis in red -

There is no standard acceptable value for TVC. Guidelines say that on-going testing should
indicate a rise in numbers and should indicate that a system is becoming contaminated /
needs cleaning. The food industry uses the following values as acceptable for TVC and
these can be used by other industries as a basic guideline to acceptable levels. TVC 22°C -
less than 1000 /ml, TVC 37oC - less than 100 / ml.

Coliforms: Coliforms are a group of environmental bacteria that have originated from the
intestines of animals. They can generally grow in the environment also and are known as
indicator organisms ie they are used as a guideline of possible contamination. In the majority of cases when coliforms are picked up in water samples taken from a tap the cause is the fact that the tap needs cleaning. Acceptable levels - not detected in 100ml.

Edgware's Total Coliform count, therefore, would appear to breach the safe level, and the 37 degrees result is only just under the guideline level.

'We would only notify staff where a risk exists', said the Chief Executive: who defines that risk?

Were all members of staff who had worked at Grahame Park notified, and tested? 

What about South Friern? And Edgware?

What are the results for the missing libraries?

Why were staff in libraries with TVC traces, where taps were taped off, not informed of the reason, and given alternative drinking water? 

Why did the authority not seek to identify any members of staff who might be at higher risk from exposure to any contaminated water, especially drinking water?

Why, as soon as legionella traces were found, and then coliform contamination, were not all libraries immediately shut and the water supply tested, and cleaned?

As the TVC tests have shown raised levels, is there a continuing system of regular checks in every library, to make sure that the count is not rising above the acceptable levels?

What is Capita's role in all this? Did they act correctly in the management of this problem? Did they, on taking over responsibility for maintenance of buildings in 2013, provide and maintain an adequate system of monitoring? 

Or was it, as in the case of the library IT crash, due to a failure by the privatised service contractors to have in place an adequate system of management?

Ironic, really: not so long ago, Capita removed access to drinking water at all council meetings. 

Maybe that was a wise precaution, in the circumstances ...

But now that libraries are entirely managed by Capita, and four of them handed over to private groups to run, can we feel assured as to the standard of maintenance, and that the health and safety of staff, volunteers and library users will not be at risk?

How many other council properties are now managed by Capita, and have their water supply systems been tested?

There is another aspect to all this. 

Six years ago, legionella was found in three Barnet care homes, and the outbreak blamed on poor maintenance by council contractors: you can read more about that here and here. The homes were run by Catalyst, for Barnet, but in turn the management was subcontracted to Fremantle. As is often the case, a privatised service led to a lowering of standards in this case with potentially fatal consequences. At the time, the authority's environmental health team was obliged to issue health and safety improvement notices to the council's contractors, as well as demand the provision of risk assessments for each water supply system.

What about now, in this case, in 2017, where Capita is responsible for both maintenance of the library buildings, and environmental health enforcement? Quite clearly there is a major conflict of interest. 

What steps were taken, in regard to the results from the library water supply systems? 

Did Capita issue itself with a health and safety improvement notice, and demand individual risk assessments? Did it receive them?


Mrs Angry will be asking Mr Hooton tomorrow to explain the statement he made, not once, but twice, that there had been no legionella traces in any Barnet library, and will update this post accordingly.

Point me to the skies: in which Mrs Angry goes to a council meeting, and pays tribute to Margaret Thatcher

Bloggers Mr Reasonable, Mr Tichborne, Mrs Thatcher, and Cllr Devra Kay


Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies; 

Heav’n’s morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee; 

In life, in death, O Lord, abide with me. 

Last night's library cuts meeting presented something of a challenge, for Mrs Angry. Or rather, more than one challenge. 

How to write, and then present, a three minute speech, in defence of our library service, and deconstructing the sham reports and weasel words of the case for the destruction of said library service, at the committee table, without laughing, surrounded as she was by squirming Tory councillors, and grinning senior officers, while outside the window, library campaigner Polly Napper and her brass band played a particularly mournful version of ... 'Abide With Me'? 

Oh, and - dressed in Tory blue, whilst singing the praises of Margaret Thatcher.

Yes, this is still Broken Barnet, written by swivel eyed Trot, and Domestic Extremist, Mrs Angry. 

There has, however, been a problem with our standards of service delivery, and it is true to say that we have failed to reach our Key Performance Indicators. 

This will in no way necessitate any mitigation, in terms of our (non compliant) contract with Barnet Council, however, and the usual £32 million annual fee will be expected, plus a gratuitous, gainshare payment for value added, gratuitous innuendo. 

Read on.

The tune, of course, as Mrs Angry gleefully reminded the Tory members, played on the Titanic, as it sank slowly into the icy waters, on that fateful night, so long ago.

Libdem councillor Jack Cohen, sitting with Mrs Angry and Barnet Eye blogger Roger Tichborne, between reading the Racing Times on his ipad, and discussing onesies on twitter, could not help, at this point, reviving the long standing argument he has, with Mrs Angry, as to ... whether or not it was a problem with being wrongly riveted, or screwed, that spelt disaster for the Titanic. 

Can't remember which way round it was, now, but - whichever way, of course, Mrs Angry was right, and Cllr Cohen wrong. 

Still, riveted or screwed, last night, were we, Mrs Angry, you are wondering? 

Neither, as it happens. After a meeting attended by a huge number of angry residents, staff and library lovers, it was clear that our quivering Tory councillors, pale with fear, just wanted the night over and done with, and the blame taken out of their hands, into the collective responsibility of approval at Full Council.

As blogger Mr Reasonable so perfectly describes here, the meeting was not a forum of debate, nor intended to be: the Tories had decided their strategy beforehand, and went through the motions of the committee as peremptorily and quickly as possible, guided by the usual dismissiveness of Tory Reuben Thompstone, whose style of chairmanship is best illustrated by what happened at a meeting attended by disabled children whose respite care funding had been slashed by Tories, shortly after their pre-election council tax stunt.

Before the meeting, Tombstone had gone around with a clipboard (of course) checking on those of us who intended to speak, or had put questions to the meeting. Mrs Angry admired his new handlebar moustache, with curling ends, and enquired, with great curiosity, as to whether or not he waxed it, on a regular basis. 

The moustache, that is.

Like similarly handlebar moustachioed octogenarian Tory councillor, and silver fox, John Hart, a great admirer of Mrs Angry, and indeed, her friend Mrs A. Fulbright. So is Reuben Thompstone, for that matter. Or they were, until April 1st.

Tombstone looked at Mrs Angry warily, and indicated that he did. Wax it. 

Salvador Dali, commented Mrs Angry, mindful of the surrealist circumstances of this somewhat unexpected dialogue, but trying to be helpful, used to use jam. 

Or was it marmalade? Or, she thought, luckily before she said it out loud, was it something else entirely? 

No, that was a scene from one of your favourite films, Mrs Angry, and best not repeated. Do try to stay focused.

Barbara Jacobson, from Barnet Alliance, was up first, with her three minutes, which you can see here:

                  

As usual she tore through the reports put to councillors, and as usual, the Tories simply failed to listen, with any objectivity, to the reasoned arguments she made.

Councillor Thomas, obviously desperate for ideas, poor boy, asked for help from Mrs Jacobson in finding alternative methods of finding the money he has apparently lost down the back of the corporate sofa, meaning that he now cannot cough up the dough to keep our library service going. She did her best to oblige.

As he spoke the band outside, in a rather unfortunate choice of music was playing: 'Oh Come Let Us Adore Him' ... Well: let's see, Come Next May, shall we, how Adorable you are, Cllr Thomas?

Then it was Mrs Angry's turn.

              

Here is the three minute speech, for what it is worth.

"This report before you, and its recommendations, are based entirely on a foundation of false assumptions, projections, and flawed evidence.

‘Modelled data’ – made up data - false assertions about ‘open libraries’: all of it carefully crafted to promote the argument, clearly rejected by your constituents, for savage cuts, despite the horrible truth, hidden from you, even as you go through the motions of scrutiny, that the savings you’re promised, and the standard of performance, never appear.

Yet again you’re asked to approve, in the pursuit of savings, huge outlays of capital in preparation of further privatisation of local services. Now it’s £6 million to cover a budget cut, made out of political choice, rather than necessity, of only £2.85 million. 

It is simply madness.

Why are you so easily persuaded by your officers, and the legions of consultants whose fees you so happily endorse, that it’s necessary to destroy our library service?

Because that’s what you’ll be doing: handing over 14 buildings to Capita, to be used for commercial purposes, with only a nominal service retained, excluding reasonable access to the vast majority of current users.

With this flawed report, if you approve these recommendations, you will make the authority vulnerable to lengthy, and costly legal challenge.

Why are you all so easily persuaded to act against the very principles in which you, as Conservatives, claim to believe?

Sanctioning these draconian cuts, Councillor Thomas, will expose you and your Conservative colleagues to the real risk of electoral failure in next year’s elections. (Not all bad news then).

Councillor Cornelius: you and your husband became involved in local politics because of proposals to shut your library, in affluent Totteridge. Now you are about to sanction the removal of library services from so many less fortunate residents, who so badly depend on access to books, and help from librarians.

Councillor Hart: after the death of Margaret Thatcher, you stated you were proud to be known as an ‘unreconstructed Thatcherite’. Well, tonight, I think it is fair to say that I am the real Thatcherite, sitting at the table.

Margaret Thatcher was of course the champion of ‘aspiration’, that ideal to which you all subscribe. 

In her memoirs she revealed that, in the era when she became the ‘milk snatcher’, she refused to allow library charges to be introduced, preferring to cut welfare spending:

I knew from my experience in Grantham, she wrote, how vital it is to have access to books …

Her father was an ‘avid reader’, a ‘self taught scholar’ and Chairman, Cllr Thompstone, of the local Library committee, who would borrow a ‘serious’ book from the library every week for himself – and his daughter.

‘As a result, she wrote, I found myself reading books which girls of my age would not generally read …’

You’ve resisted any real threat to your own library in Edgware, Councillor Hart - the branch I depended on, as a child, in a house without books: every word I write now, as it happens, was formed by the reading material I found on the bookshelves of that library.

The price of maintaining your library, however, is that the children of the poor, in East Finchley , for example - in Strawberry Vale, the worst area of social deprivation in Barnet, and one of the highest in the country - will lose all but token access to the vital support that a library brings. 

Is that fair?

What would Margaret think about that, I wonder, Councillors?"

Well, Mrs Angry felt quite pleased with herself, to have out-Thatchered an Unreconstructed Thatcherite, and there was much amusement in the public gallery, and applause, and it was clear that when directly addressed, and held to account, the named Tory members were ... deeply uncomfortable. 

Mrs Angry also felt uncomfortable, in truth, having had to appeal to the very thing she detests the most: the cult of Thatcherism, whose shrine is here, in Broken Barnet, amongst her heirs and successors, who stalk the corridors of the Town Hall, still living, in their minds, in the glorious era of her ascendancy.

It should be noted, readers, that in order to research the material for this speech, Mrs Angry was obliged to read the early chapters of several biographies, and the autobiography, of the young Margaret Roberts. 

Having sat down to pre-order these volumes at the British Library, and finding them already in use by some other deluded reader, Mrs Angry was very grateful to find them ... in her local library. Where else?

And by the way: one of the very first speeches Margaret made in Finchley, you know, in February 1959, was in ... North Finchley Library. 

Oh, and Mrs Angry did some 'volunteer' shelving, while she was in her own local library, in Church End, just to show willing.

Back to the meeting. 

The aspirational Dan Thomas was clearly wishing he was not taking part in the proceedings, and was uncharacteristically quiet all evening: when Mrs Angry pointed out the impact that the Tory library cuts would have on his attempt to take the GLA seat from Labour's Andrew Dismore. 

The look on his face said it all: he knows it, and not even his half hearted comment, sotto voce to her at the table, you said that last year, was expressed with any conviction. 

He knows the truth, that although in the end the Tory MPs were returned in the last election, the library issue lost them many thousands of votes, caused them to panic, in the run up to polling day, and indeed, in the public gallery last night, and even outside in the demonstration, there were, quite astonishingly, perhaps, numbers of Conservative voting residents who not only objected to the library cuts but for the first time had come to a library meeting to witness their elected representatives in action - and taken part in a protest.

After Mrs Angry's speech, Tory chair Reuben Thompstone put the same question he had put to Barbara Jacobson, in boorish manner, demanding to know ... if we were going to volunteer at our local library. Outside, the band reverted to the beginning of its musical medley:

When other helpers fail and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me ...

It demonstrated, with perfect clarity, that he simply does not understand the objection to volunteer run libraries: that he and his colleagues have no grasp of the professional skills needed to run a library service, of their vital role in supporting the needs of users, and that no one with any decency wants to play their part in turning library staff out of their jobs, into a desperate future of unemployment and loss of livelihood.

Barbara responded in no uncertain terms, taken aback by such an aggressive and misjudged question: Mrs Angry, forewarned, suggested immediately that Reuben Thompstone might like to consider performing his role as councillor and chair of the committee on a voluntary basis, rather than raking in the massive allowances he enjoys, reminding him of one of his Tory predecessors, the widely respected Councillor Sussman, who gave years of service to the borough, seeing it as a civic duty - but never claimed a single penny in allowance.

And further, Mrs Angry, who, unlike Reuben Thompstone, has worked in public libraries and knows exactly what a difficult, but rewarding job it is, reminded him, she did enough voluntary work by the means of producing this blog, with all the lovingly chronicled reports of incompetence within the ranks of the current Tory administration. Reuben appeared to be less than grateful for this example of Big Society enterprise in action, it must be said.

Two questions from Labour councillors: what did Mrs Angry know about the claims made in the report regarding Scandinavian libraries, and the open model it describes, falsely, as being the 'standard approach' there. Mrs Angry pointed out that only one country in Scandinavia used this model, that is to say Denmark, and out of 500 libraries, only around 180 are of this type - and only in isolated rural communities. Nowhere comparable to the scheme proposed by this report, in terms of the context of an urban environment, or on such a scale, has ever been attempted - for good reason.

Another Labour councillor's question asked if she thought the earlier proposal to shrink libraries to 540 square feet had really been a serious consideration. Mrs Angry replied that it was quite obviously a scare tactic, meant to make the current almost equally bad shrinkage appear more acceptable - which of course it is not.

There was little time to put supplementary questions, to 134 written submissions, but we tried. Despite desperate attempts at evasion, it emerged that - yes, Crapita are in line to boost their profits from the already burdened taxpayers of Broken Barnet, by getting gainshare payments on top of their contractual fees, for managing the former library buildings, when they get their sweaty little hands on them. Kerrching! As for the new idea, by our warm hearted council, to make the children of Broken Barnet pay daily fines on overdue books, they hoped to make as much as £25, 000, in the next financial period. 

Marvellous: and how, asked Mrs Angry, will you enforce this? Will you annexe their pocket money, should they refuse to cough up? Or send round the Capita bailiffs? And what if there are not enough naughty children in Broken Barnet, keeping their books out too long, and you fail to squeeze enough cash out of them? What is the risk assessment in terms of such failure, seeing as your revenue projections depend on such certainties?

Ah: risk assessment ... for some reason, officers were markedly reluctant to answer any questions, no matter how many times you repeated the question, about this subject. It then emerged that the full risk register would now have to be made public because someone had FOI'd it. Good. Because really, it should have been part of the report, shouldn't it, so councillors could judge the case for the proposals.

Oh dear. A thought, readers: how awful it would be, if the reason the risk assessment was not made available was because ... the risks are ... sshhh ...  TOO HIGH!

The other glaring omission was anything other than a draft EIA, ie Equalities Impact Assessment. Whether this was deliberate, as clearly would be very useful, in getting the proposals past a committee, or just incompetence, is hard to say: more likely, this being Broken Barnet, to be sheer indifference.  

The greatest flaw in the report lies here, however, and for whatever reason. The impact of the proposals, especially the open library nonsense, will, without question, make a profound impact on the groups to which the Equalities Act extends a duty of protection. Young, old, sick, disabled, poor, or just different in some way: your rights to access to a library service are about to be stolen from you, courtesy of your Tory councillors. 

Some councillors are not fazed by the potential risks posed by open libraries, however. Dan Thomas dared to venture a point, not very strongly, as he was trying hard not to put his head above the parapet, that student libraries that are open for use when not staffed were ok, and therefore an unstaffed library in an urban part of London, late at night, was comparable. 

Councillor Helena Hart, however, having, as Mrs Angry pointed out in her speech, made sure her own library in Edgware was going to be just fine, was keen to try to present the open system as perfectly acceptable. Edgware, in a nice leafy suburb, had piloted a scheme of this sort: it has only run for three months, has had a pathetically low uptake, and yet was offered as proof of satisfaction.

Although there was some dissatisfaction expressed by the senior officer, regarding the exclusion of children from the open libraries, and some handwringing about perhaps it might be possible, in some future proposal, to address this; the safety aspects were dismissed by Councillor Hart, by implication, and on no good reason. That there have been no incidents yet is hardly evidence that bears relying upon - and residents in the room were furious. 

What will happen, if there is anti-social behaviour, or some sort of assault, or medical emergency: and there will be, as anyone who works in a library can testify?

How can lone women feel safe in such an environment, especially at night?

Who will help, should there be any sort of trouble?

There is CCTV, we were told - well, yes, but not live, shouted residents.

Councillor Hart did agree, somewhat primly,that it was unfortunate that there would be no toilets available in the new open libraries. 

But she wanted to make the point that Even Before the pilot scheme had been in place, the toilet had often been out of order because ... because ... and here she prepared herself for an immersion in vulgarity, like a staff nurse putting on rubber gloves, to clean out a bedpan ... because of ... Misuse.

Councillor Hart's face indicated, in no uncertain terms, that this ... misuse ... amounted to some unmentionable horror, possibly worse than, say ... the toilet seat left standing. 

Perhaps  ... an act of contempt, left on the floor, as a souvenir, in time honoured fashion?

Still, thought Mrs Angry: if so, a perfect metaphor, in its way, for what the Tories want to do to our library service, is it not?

They never shit on their own doorsteps, after all, but prefer to leave the dirty stuff dumped on those whose opinions count for nothing, in this borough.

(Mrs Angry was educated by nuns, you know. Almost made a full recovery, as you can see).

If the Tories think that, by referring the library report to Full Council, the matter will be at an end, however: they are mistaken. 

As Mr Reasonable put it: 

Barnet is a great place to live because of the people who live here, the people who care, the people who are passionate about their community ...

These are the people I love:  the ones who stand up, and speak out, when they see injustice, and inequality, and a democratic process held hostage by commerce, and self interest; who see elected representatives who betray them, betray us, and our best interests, rather than protect us, and the things we need, just to get by, to live, not according to our worth, our status, but as families, individuals, friends, comrades: old and young, straight, gay, able bodied, disabled, rich or poor, citizens of the world, residents of Broken Barnet.

It's no wonder they want to shut the libraries, and hand the buildings over to Capita, as part of its failing empire: a last trophy, perhaps, for the outsourcerers.

But this fight, over our library service, is about so much more than that. 

And that fight continues.

Death and Taxes in Broken Barnet - another outsourcing opportunity

They say that there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes.

In Broken Barnet, Mrs Angry supposes, you have to make that three certainties: death, taxes and Brian Coleman. And here, citizens, is a post which neatly addresses all three of these grim subjects.

On Tuesday night - tomorrow night - we have the next Broken Barnet Cabinet Resources committee meeting. Sounds awfully dull, doesn't it? Worse than dull, the Chair of the meeting is the glacial young Tory councillor Daniel Thomas, surrounded by the committee from hell that is Brian Coleman, Richard Cornelius, Andrew Harper, Sachin Rajput and Robert Rams. Oh, and on the agenda is one very interesting item, given an innocuous heading, in the hope that we will not see it for the disgusting, greedy little One Barnet business venture that it really is.

Item 10: Replacement of cremators, building works, renovations and compliance with mercury abatement legislation at Hendon Cemetery & Crematorium

Mrs Angry has several close family members interred in the grounds of Hendon Cemetery, as it happens, and was alarmed to see it listed on this agenda, knowing what she does about the One Barnet profit hungry drive to squeeze every last business opportunity out of our community resources. Oh, but surely, Mrs Angry, you may be asking - despicable in every way though they may be, surely the Tory councillors of our borough will draw the line at making use of the dead for their grubby little easycouncil agenda?

Wise up. This is Broken Barnet.

Hendon Cemetery was opened in 1899, and the crematorium added in 1922. It has forty acres of grounds. As the report admits, the facilities have been neglected by the council and have left the place in a dreadful state, which to anyone who has to arrange a funeral there, or attend the grave of a family member, is frankly very upsetting. In addition, the 'cremators' ie the incinerators are 'living on borrowed time' - prone to breaking down, a potential health and safety risk, and simply not fit for purpose. The whole enterprise has been allowed to deteriorate to a disgraceful and dangerous condition by the authority, in other words. Or, as the report puts it:

9.12 The dilapidations, disrepair and lack of modern, fit for purpose facilities act as a deterrent to using Hendon as a venue of choice. Upgrading and bringing back into use buildings within the gatehouse will provide a new modern public facing reception and office facility.

9.13 Renovation and improvement to the buildings and site generally will provide an enhanced and more appealing customer experience for the bereaved.

Ah yes: a more appealing customer experience. Hendon Crematorium, a venue of choice.

For f*cks sake, councillors of Broken Barnet. You are talking about grief, and loss - not a marketing opportunity.

But no, Mrs Angry is being foolish and sentimental. Everything that our councillors can get their sweaty little hands on is now a marketing opportunity. And the only reason our elected representatives are suddenly gripped with anxiety over the state of the place is because of its inclusion in the £275 million DRS package of services being out to tender (in parallel with the £750 million written about elsewhere).

Believe it or not, the slavering outsourcing companies waiting in in the parlour of the One Barnet knocking shop have a necrophiliac like interest in the substantial revenues offered by crematoria. There is profit in death, you know, being something that can't easily be avoided, even in Broken Barnet.

Earlier this year, of course, Cabinet member for the Environment Councillor Coleman upped the charges for those residents foolish enough to dare to die under the rule of One Barnet, thinking they can get away with the old rate of burial fees. Even though they walk through the valley of the shadow of death, Brian Coleman and the One Barnet manifesto will be at their side. With a whopping bill.

One of the committee reports a few months ago coolly listed, in clinical bureacratic detail, the scale of increased new charges for still born babies, and children under three years old. This part of the report had disappeared, Mrs Angry noted, by the next meeting. But the lesson was clear: nothing is more important in One Barnet than profit, and even grief has its charge.

In order to make Hendon Cemetery into the attractive proposal it could be, the report going to committee tomorrow night is asking for a capital sum to pay for a list of improvements. A truly staggering sum of £1,743,734 is needed in order to prepare the Cemetery for outsourcing.

It is claimed in the report that 'the works will be funded from capital receipts'. This is of course nonsense: how on earth can you depend on capital receipts you do not have, in order to pay for this? Where is the money coming from? How can we afford it? And when the cemetery maintenance and cremation service is sold off, the charges will rise even more in order for the company to take its profit.

In other words, here we have another example of the stinking truth of the One Barnet programme: it is costing us, the residents, millions of pounds to support and has saved us NOTHING in return.

Oh, and here is a funny thing: almost forgot - really, Mrs Angry, standards are slipping - take a look at this part of the report ... (Mrs Angry's highlighting in red to make it easy for even the dopiest Tory councillor to understand):

Options Appraisal

9.9 HCC has, as a result of the decision by Cabinet Resources Committee on 23rd April 2009, mentioned in paragraph 2.1, undergone an options appraisal and soft market testing with the major providers within the industry, which found that when considered as a standalone business, an in house delivery with the required investment would be most attractive from a financial perspective.

In other words, it was recognised that - HELLO - spending nearly two million pounds on doing up Hendon Cemetery in order to give it away as a nice present to an outsourcing company might not be the best use of residents' money.

What has changed? This is a question the Tory councillors might like to consider.

What has changed is that those pushing the One Barnet balls, for whatever reasons we may imagine, are desperate to throw the cemetery services into the DRS package as a sweetener for the outsourcing tendering companies. And they are prepared to spend whatever it takes with our money to acheive this. We, the residents of Broken Barnet, are paying to enable the future profitability of private companies engaged in a process we are told is purely to save us money. It is a disgraceful, blatant betrayal of the best interests of the residents of this borough.

We are continually being forced to listen to the mantra of One Barnet, better services for less money, ruthless drive for efficiency: citizens - this is absolute drivel. Neither efficiency nor savings will ensue as a result of the massive outsourcing that the council is pushing through. Why are they pushing it through?

Of course the senior management team has its own agenda, and won't be around when the implications for this borough are all too plain for us to see - the terrible services, the continual rise in costs. Why should they care?

And the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet?

Most of them are too stupid to understand the implications. And the rest of them are scheming bastards who don't give a damn about the consequences.