Monday, 11 November 2013

The Loved Ones: or - the processing of the deceased, in Capitaville



Once upon a time, when we lived in Broken Barnet, it was sometimes possible, or even necessary, to write about the things that happened in the style of parody, or satire.

Now that we live in Capitaville, of course, we have moved beyond the choice of periodic satire to a state where life has become devoid of irony, or any sense of the absurd. In evidence of this, I ask you to contemplate the following revelations from the newly published DRS contract, a document which has been put online by Barnet Council and used as proof of a commitment to the principles of transparency and open government. 

Open government may be the 'default mode' of this council, in the fevered imaginings of delusional senior officers, but transparent this document most certainly is not: see here

 http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/940440/development_and_regulatory_services_drs_contract/1153/development_and_regulatory_services_drs_contract 

The pages that have not been redacted wholesale are blacked out with a marker pen, the meaning of the content made incomprehensible, censored, to use a metaphor that comes easily today, Remembrance Day - like my grandfather's postcards from the trenches, for fear of betraying the secrets of war. And it is a war, despite the attempts by the same delusional officers to set up a temporary truce with bloggers in a sort of virtual No Mans Land. 

Mrs Angry has no particular desire to sit and navigate her way through the redacted collection of corporate claptrap without a specific purpose, but yesterday afternoon,  she did sit and read through part of the section dealing with the plans by Capita to maximise the revenue and development potential of Hendon Crematorium. 

As previously reported, the Crematorium was added as an afterthought to the DRS contract for a significant reason: as a 'sweetener' to attract the attentions of would be bidders.

Crematoria are attractive to outsourcing companies because of the guaranteed income from the lucrative marketing opportunity that is death. 

And not just death, because, as we know, death is not the end, in Capitaville: there is the life of the world to come, a paradise comprising even more marketing opportunities for our new masters, who have come to judge both the living and the dead, and weigh up the potential there may be to extract from those in the process of mourning, or having had the impertinence to try to evade their clutches by dying.
 
The process of mourning, and the business of profit based upon it, was a subject famously written about by Jessica Mitford, in 'The American Way of Death', a study of the obsequious predations of the funeral trade, its targeting of the bereaved and ruthless inflation of the cost of burial, with unnecessary services and accoutrements. 

Evelyn Waugh's satirical novel 'The Loved One' had already tapped into the rich seam of  grotesque material that this subject supplies, with its portrayal of 'Whispering Glades', the Happier Hunting Ground, and Mr Joyboy, the mortician and embalmer with a notable skill for leaving his clients with a permanent smile ...

In truly horrible detail, and with a commendable accompaniment of black humour , Mitford portrayed a world where the exploitation of grief and of the fear of dying, accompanied by unscrupulous sales practices and a grossly amusing euphemistic world of 'pre-need' arrangements, there was, there is still, a range of services where the reality of death is cosmetically enhanced, or rather embalmed, so as to facilitate the grasping ambitions of a hugely profitable industry. 


Still: that would never happen here, would it?

Oh yes, it would - and it is, here, and now, now that - ah, in the midst of life, we are in Capitaville.

Hidden away in the DRS contract, is Schedule 37, the commercial development plan, which tells us with great glee of the way in which Capita Symonds intends to make money out of us, here and in the hereafter.

Wade through the marvellously entitled 'Assessment of the opportunity Pipeline' with its 'PROSPECTS' - this is their aspirational marketing range - and its un-factored pipeline nemesis, along with the dreaded 'SUSPECTS' - but don't worry, you can convert SUSPECTS into PROSPECTS, presumably with the same evangelical strategies as Christians Against Poverty, or BT in their 'Vital Vision' programme?

Then we get to the nitty gritty. Various marketing proposals specific to Barnet. Each introduced in a section headed The Opportunity, followed by 'Making it happen', and then a note informing you that this is a 'Monopolistic Market Penetration growth idea'. Bit of a tease, because these aspirational penetrations may come to nothing, of course. Always disappointing. Don't be embarrassed, Capita Symonds, could happen to anyone.

Now then: Hendon Crematorium. What is The Opportunity there? Oh, plenty, plenty of Opportunities. Take your pick.





Let's see. Well, we already know that Capita Symonds have announced they want to designate the cemetery grounds as 'an open space, and have their greedy mitts on the historic Gatehouse entrance, and want to install a cafe there, to enhance your bereavement experience. And it seems there is further development potential there, in surplus land and buildings. Quite how they think they will get permission to change the use on Green Belt Land is puzzling ... ah, but then, Capita Symonds is in charge of planning now, is it not?

What new proposals do we have?

Flowers. Ah. Nothing to object to here, surely? A service to place flowers on memorials, on specified dates, take photos and email them to the bereaved. Fine. How will they do this? An annual fee, and discreet sensitive marketing of the bereaved. 

Unfortunately, the report notes, some bereaved families may insist on laying their own flowers, at first. Once the novelty wears off though: kerrching! They will access their records of those associated with the last ten years of funerals and target them for the new 'Opportunity'.

But what about your pre-need needs, deathwise, that is to say, for your post-life resting place? Can you pre-book your pre-need place in eternity? 

Maybe not in eternity, but in Capitaville yes, as this will create an infinity of further Opportunities for you, your grieving families and on and on to the generations that follow, all being milked of their inheritance in order to pay for your post-need placement, flowers, and maintenance costs. Nothing to dwell on, simply like pre-ordering drinks at the theatre bar, when waiting to see Les Mis. But with even less of a happy ending, though hopefully less singing, other than choirs of heavenly angels, depending on your ultimate destination.

This Opportunity proposes to increase revenue from grave purchases by an astonishing 40%. Not an increase - a premium. Especially if you want what they coyly refer to as 'a virgin grave'. This is not, as you might hope, a last, chaste lingering embrace, spending eternity in the shared last resting place of, say, one of the Sisters of the Poor Child Jesus, (not sure all of them would qualify, tbh), but a grave that is not pre-used by a resident of Broken Barnet, who presumably might have to be turfed out or shoved to one side to make room for a new customer.

Capita Symonds note, with pursed lips, that some people are buying their last resting place in advance, laying their towels by the pool of eternal life, when they are not only a. not dead yet and b. worse still, not resident in the borough. 

This practice is apparently frowned upon, in Capitaville, rather like the misuse of a heavenly CPZ in the celestial equivalent of Hampstead Garden Suburb, and of course any undue interference in the penetration of this market is unwelcome. Grave hogging will be forbidden, from now on:

 'We will introduce strict measures to ensure this stops'.


Of course lack of space for burials is mirrored by lack of space in the schedules of a busy crematorium for funerals. Capita Symonds needs to maximise business, and have more funerals, therefore ... the company proposes to make funerals shorter. Yes, really.

They feel worried, however, at the 'public and political' reaction to this idea, so will be doing so 'incrementally'. 

Marvellous: hurry along there, please, Madam, dry your tears, and pull yourself together: there's a queue forming under the entrance to the Capita Symonds 'Last Orders' bar and cafe. 

Longer opening hours, too, to 'squeeze', as they put it, the service around the current constraints. In winter, lighting will be made available for later slots: marvellous Opportunities, one would have thought, for Halloween themed funerals, with catering?

An even more radical Opportunity now. Burials, you see, are frankly less of an Opportunity for business potential than cremations. This is because burials take too long, use too much valuable space, and do not provide the easier profits that cremations can deliver. 

Capita Symonds therefore proposes to encourage the take up of cremation only packages. Even this has been carefully evaluated. We learn that each cremation takes between two to two and a half hours, an inconveniently long time. And that is not including the 'initial heating phase'.

This may be addressed, they think, but by taking on more staff to 'achieve business growth'. By such means they will be able to send at least one more resident of Capitaville on their last journey each day, and be quids in.

How about 'Making this happen', then Mrs Angry, I hear you ask? 

They intend to consult faith groups, and 'other celebrants' ie those with no faith, such as humanists, whom they believe only live in Watford and Harrow. Watford certainly is a godforsaken sort of place, isn't it?

They also show immense sensitivity, in all the wrong places, by worrying about those faith groups who frown upon cremation, even though it is economically more productive, including Roman Catholics - a strange misapprehension, which may have been the case a century or so ago, but certainly not now. 

Capita Symonds, you are in grave danger - oh: but you know what I mean - of missing the enormous potential incendiary Opportunity of the immense, and usually overlooked Catholic population of Broken Barnet. We worry more, in fact, about the prospect of roasting in hell: but no doubt Capita has a Joint Venture down there already, which will make the transition less painful.

There is more. 

After you have been to a funeral, and enjoyed a good weep in the chapel, sung a few hymns, and strolled outside to admire the floral tributes - be honest, have you never felt that you wish you could relive the experience, in the comfort of your own home, and your flat screen HD tv? 

Well: if this next Opportunity is agreed, that is exactly what you may be able to do soon, courtesy of Capita. Yes, live streaming of funerals, and dvds of that special ceremony will be available to support an improved at home bereavement experience. Fixed position cameras will be installed in the chapels, in 'a discreet way', 'sympathetic to the buildings' structures', and 'unobtrusive from the point of the bereaved' ... Customers will be given passwords to access the funerals of their 'loved ones'. Again, a terrific idea: why go at all to pay your respects when you could watch the ceremony live on your i-phone? The fewer who attend in person, the faster the turnover time, remember.

One sentence here more than any other, perhaps, in the entire document betrays the real philosopy of this company. 

Referring to the Humanist representatives they intend to consult the document states: 

Our proposal is to effectively separate the processing of the deceased from the service and rituals that accompany the funeral of whatever type, where this is possible.

The processing of the deceased.

Yes, put to one side the rituals of whatever type, that might interfere with the pursuit of profit. The last rites of the dead are a procedure, a process, a logistical challenge. 

Everything and everyone now is a commodity, a piece of stock. 

And one last thing. 

Friends at Capita: Mrs Angry takes her hat off to you. 

You do have a sense of humour, after all. 

In the worst possible taste, of course.

Ploughing through all these monstrous marketing proposals, made near impossible by the relentless redactions, and dreadful scanning of the document, Mrs Angry's eye was caught by one tiny sentence in an obscure section relating to, oh dear - the 'capitalised' pre-selling of virgin graves ... 

On page 182, under the 'deliverability' concerns of this proposed Opportunity, there is one very serious issue noted, and I quote: 

Risk of some backlash from blogging community which can be mitigated by offering cheaper retained grave as a pre-purchase option.

 

In other words, readers, Capita is offering an Opportunity to Mrs Angry and her fellow citizen journalists, in the shape of a discounted grave in Hendon Crematorium, in the hope that they will embrace the new era of Capitalised post-life support services.

Mrs Angry imagines that this is the sort of offer that she is unable to refuse.

And this is actually in the contract: forget all the fuss about the unpredented publicity agreement - how many contracts have burial clauses for local bloggers? 

Or have Capita taken out some other sort of contract, in order to ensure maximum take-up of this once in a lifetime Opportunity?

Of course the subtext, sadly, and inescapably, is that they want to see us deceased, and processed, silenced, and safely out of the way.

Over my dead body.

Oh ...

 

Friday, 8 November 2013

The curious case of the £16.1 million payout to Capita: a joint statement from the Barnet bloggers




Barnet's bloggers are today issuing this joint statement challenging  the Conservative administration of this borough to explain the circumstances of the £16.1 million of taxpayers' money held in reserve which was given to Capita in August this year, in apparent contradiction of the agreement detailed by the authority before, during and after the contract with Capita was signed.


Dear Councillors

Throughout the history of the One Barnet outsourcing programme, statements by the leader of Barnet council, Cabinet members, Conservative councillors and the senior management team have all maintained that as a fundamental commitment to the NSCSO contract Capita would make a large ‘upfront’ capital investment.

The necessity of this investment by a private sector partner was given as the reason why the authority refused even to consider an in-house option as an alternative to privatisation of council services.

If an in-house option had been adopted, not only would many local jobs have been saved, all efficiencies made through better management of such functions as procurement would have been retained by the authority, as opposed to a limited amount capped in the contractual agreement with Capita. By ignoring this option, it is arguable that the statutory duty of the authority to make the best use of taxpayers' money may have been breached.

We have now learnt that not only has Capita failed to make the promised capital funding but that in August, in a complete reversal of  policy, the Leader of the Council sanctioned the payment to Capita of £16.1 million of taxpayers’ money held in the authority’s reserves, in order to cover the cost of the capital investment.

We believe that not only have the leadership, Conservative members and senior management team of Barnet Council promoted the need for privatisation, and the contract with Capita, on a totally false premise, they have continued to mislead residents by misrepresenting the facts, and maintaining that capital investment is to be given by the company, rather than admitting that money has been taken from the authority's reserves and paid to Capita for this purpose.

After the Cabinet meeting of 6th December 2012 which approved the contract with Capita, Councillor Cornelius made this claim in a statement published on the BBC London news website

Council leader Richard Cornelius said the combination of a saving to the taxpayer of a million pounds a month and an £8m investment in technology by Capita made it a "very, very good deal for the Barnet taxpayer".



This misrepresentation of the truth has continued even after the payment £16.1 million was formally authorised by the Leader of the council.

The business model approved by Cabinet on 6th December 2012 stated clearly that this investment was to come from Capita: how can it be lawful, therefore, that having approved the contract on this basis, we now find the reverse is true, and that taxpayers are paying for the investment?

If there is any financial argument for such a fundamental change, why has the authority not been open and transparent about this new agreement, and sought approval through the appropriate procedures?

The authorisation to add £16.1 million to the capital programme in order to pay for the capital investment was made on 5th August this year by Councillor Richard Cornelius, in an action defined as a 'non key' decision.

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903

According to the council's own constitution, key decisions are those that are 'significant in financial terms or in their effect on communities comprising two or more wards'.

Clearly the decision to remove £16.1 million from reserve funds in this way most certainly is a key decision, and departs in the most fundamental way from the business model approved in December.

Quite incredibly, on 6th August, the day on which the contracts were signed, and the very next day after the leader signed off the £16.1 million to cover the capital investment, Barnet Council issued a press release:  http://www.barnet.gov.uk/news/article/346/barnet_council_and_capita_sign_contracts_to_save_barnet_taxpayer_millions in which it is stated:

"Capita will also make an £8 million pound investment in technology to improve council back office services".

What is that statement, other than a deliberate misrepresentation of an unpalatable truth?

We note that the explanation of the NSCSO contract on the council's own website, updated after 5th August, continues to maintain falsely that an upfront investment will come from Capita: see here -

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/930354/new_support_and_customer_services_organisation_nscso/990/new_support_and_customer_services_organisation_nscso

Capita will make an upfront investment which will provide improved Information Technology and telephone support to improve council back office services.

In regard to the approval of 5th August, the constitution says:


When key decisions are to be discussed or made, notification is published at least 28 days before. If these decisions are to be discussed with council officers at a meeting of the Executive, this will generally be open for the public to attend, except where personal or confidential matters are being discussed. The Executive has to make decisions that are in line with the Council’s overall policies and budget. If it wishes to make a decision that is outside the budget or policy framework, this must be referred to the full Council to decide.

Unless the change of policy, and a radical change to the terms of the business model represented by the decision to use reserve funds for a capital investment payment to Capita has been formally agreed through the relevant constitutional procedures, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the payment may well be unlawful, and as residents, taxpayers and citizen journalists in Barnet we object in the strongest terms to what would appear to be a serious breach of the regulations that are supposed to protect our best interests, and we ask you to instigate an immediate investigation into the issues we have raised.


Derek Dishman

John Dix

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

A Sleight of Hand: the now you see it, now you don't process of capital investment, in Broken Barnet


A wall of silence is like any other seemingly impenetrable barrier: there is a weakness in the structure, somewhere, if you can find it - and the rules of engagement in the Battle of Broken Barnet allow for more than way of defeating the enemy.

Skulking in the cellars of their ostensibly impregnable fortress, our foolish Tory councillors believe themselves to be bound by a vow of loyalty to each other, and a sense of duty to the rule of omerta. Well: that accounts for the freemasons, anyway, of whom there are many, in the Conservative ranks, of course.

And the wall of silence that surrounds the revelation that our councillors have given £16.1 million of taxpayers money in reserve to Capita, in a total reversal of all promises made in the One Barnet contract negotiations? 

Councillors may be maintaining an unprecedented resolve to ignore all questions on this point (do you reckon they've been whipped, Brian?) but in certain circumstances questions may not be avoided for ever. 

How many years long was the Trojan siege, and how did it end?

Public questions to committees, for example. Well, yes, it is true that these are usually safely contained by carefully written answers: but the real art of troublemaking is in the supplementary questions, which you present verbally, at the table, without warning, in order to produce a more spontaneous, unguarded and often more valuable response.

Last night saw a series of three committee meetings at the town hall: Cabinet, General Functions and Cabinet resources. Mrs Angry had no questions tabled, but she had a cunning plan, and sent into the room, and the corporate circus already full of elephants and a troupe of performing monkeys, a wooden horse, in the shape of a woman called Barbara Jacobson.

In her address to the council later, Labour leader Alison Moore gave a robust rubbishing of the points made, and commented that the actions of the Tory administration in regard to the matter of the capital investment represented a 'sleight of hand'. It is perhaps the perfect description.

The verbal answers to the supplementary questions seen in the footage do not tell you anything you really want to know about the capital investment. The expressions and body language of the Tory councillors and senior officers serve that purpose: the averted eye contact, the gripped faces, the glasses of water, the very interesting papers suddenly attracting their attention on the table ...

The councillors were not expecting to be caught out with questions about the £16.1 million payment. What could they say, under the spotlight? Mrs Angry sat back and regarded the scene with a probably unreasonable degree of perverse pleasure as the Tory members squirmed in their seats.

  

The written question had been about the hundreds of members of staff who, because of the privatisation, have lost their jobs with the authority, and many of whom face redundancy. In reply to a recitation of facts we already knew about the job losses, came the following supplementary question:

The original argument for outsourcing council services to the private sector was that an in-house option, which would have retained hundreds of the jobs now being tuped over to Capita, could not be considered, as we depended on investment from a commercial partner to make the savings we require.

We have now learnt that contrary to the statement continually promoted by our Conservative members, the capital investment has been made not by Capita, but by us, the taxpayers and residents of Barnet. We could have used the same investment to keep services in-house, and protect local jobs. 

Can the Chair explain what would appear to be a deliberate attempt to mislead residents as to the reason for entering the contract with Capita, and explain to staff why the councillors preferred to support this contract at the expense of their livelihoods, and our services?

The response came not from the Chair, Leader Richard Cornelius, but from Robert Rams, who has been responsible with deputy leader Daniel Thomas for heading the outsourcing deal. Rams, more used to playing the part of the lovely Debbie McGee to financial magician Thomas, you will note avoids eye contact, avoids the question, and talks a load of nonsense, as usual. What does he say? 

The payment of the £16 million is agreed payment as set out in the specific payment to Capita ...

When? asks Mrs Angry, off screen, but sadly Cllr Rams appears not to hear her. 

Cllr Rams appears also to have forgotten to tell us that this 'agreed' payment has replaced a previous agreement, as approved of in the business model that went to Cabinet for approval in December, and promoted by him and his colleagues as the basis of the whole deal, that Capita would be paying these costs upfront.

Let's say it again, and oh look, it is still on the council website in the helpful explanation of the NSCSO contract published AFTER the contract signing:
 
CAPITA will make an upfront investment which will provide improved Information Technology and telephone support to improve council back office services.

Back to little Robert Rams in the footage. He continues:

... erm the er ... argument you put forward in terms of (it would be better implemented?) in-house is actually a false argument, because ... we are removing all the revenue costs by ... outsourcing it and erm it means we can buy in the expertise of Capita to enable us to be able to improve erm the ITT to the council erm ... do both, er behind er behind  (sounds like modern instructions and things that bite - don't ask me) ... and for ... officers and councillors alike ...

Got that? One Barnet, the case for outsourcing, by Robert Rams. Absolute drivel. 

Another question from Barbara was on the issue of the 'savings' the Capita contracts are supposed to bring us. It would be useful to tell you what the amount of savings should be, but this figure is ever changing, never the same, and is fated, we suspect, to remain an aspiration, always moving out of sight. Some of these savings are, we are told 'guaranteed', but this definition of 'guaranteed' most likely means, ultimately, to be fought for in the courts should the aspirational sums fail to appear. The supplementary question, then:

The savings from the contract with Capita are capped, for example in the case of procurement, and any excess lands in the lap of the lucky shareholders of Capita plc, yet if we had chosen an in-house alternative to outsourcing, we would have been able to retain unlimited savings, particularly in the area of procurement, where our tradition of incompetence has made a ripe opportunity for gain from efficiencies. Does the Chair not agree that in hindsight, an in-house option should have been considered and indeed was always possible as the investment of £16.1 million needed was just waiting in our reserves, and was never going to come from Capita, or indeed any private sector partner?

Oh dear. No proper response, again. The Chair did not believe a better advantage would have come from not capping the savings. 

Really?

Later on came another opportunity for vicarious satisfaction from the Labour leader Alison Moore, who demanded an explanation of the same scandalous issue: 


This again offers a marvellous opportunity to witness the discomfiture of our elected members, the chin gripping senior officers of the London Borough of Broken Barnet as they watch their colleague present such a load of guff to the committee table, and then of course there is the delightful distraction of the typically hard faced, hard lined Tory right winger Cllr Davey apparently as keen to hear the explanation as any member of the public ...

The leader of the council appeared unwilling to tackle the curious question of the £16 million handover, and deferred to the Chief Finance Officer and deputy Chief Executive, Chris Naylor, for a 'technical' answer, political answers being too sensitive, apparently: and here is the technical explanation, accompanied by some interesting open handed gestures, in homage to the default mode of open government, which Mr Naylor has written about in the Guardian recently. Oh: in fact, the open hand turns inwards, but perhaps one should not read too much into that.

First he states the investment is principally in infrastructure, and tells us those assets will revert to the council. Yes: and how much depreciation of those assets, located where, will have taken place by then, and how much will be lost in real terms from that depreciation, and was that factored into the negotiations? He moves on:

Essentially, what is happening here is ... that the funding and financing, or principally the financing of the capital ... is through the deal with Capita ...

See, this inciseful explanation is what we give our Chief Finance Officer a six figure salary for. We are paying the for the capital investment from our reserves, but at the same time, we are not, and Capita is really paying it. He continues: (Mrs Angry's comments in red)

The overall contract sum has not changed as a result of the council's decision to fund this investment through our own resources, 

when did that decision to fund the investment take place, though?

principally, erm, we have done so because, in the final analysis, this presented the best value for money for the council,

again - when was this 'final analysis' that changed the whole nature of the agreement over investment, and why did it suddenly present a better value for money, and why has the authority kept it secret and continued to tell everyone Capita was paying for it?

but the financing of that debt, and the repayment of that debt, comes through the guaranteed savings in the contract, 

but we have already been 'guaranteed' these savings when Capita was paying for the investment ...

and I guess that still is a differentiator from, er, if the deal had been, er, if the deal had been struck on an in-house basis

you guess ... are you not sure? Or is the truth that you do not know, because this was never explored, for political reasons?

as obviously those savings would not have been guaranteed, and that would would have made a different risk profile to er to the capital investment ... 

but any and all savings would have directly benefited the taxpayers and residents of Barnet, rather than the shareholders of Capita, and in the present deal we are only allowed to retain a minimum amount of any savings made ...

So this notion that, erm, there is we, er, can suddenly quote afford some additional money is an inaccurate reading of the situation we find ourselves in. We can afford as it were to fund this investment because of the contractual guarantees in the contract 

but those contractual guarantees were there already, when we were told Capita was giving the capital investment upfront!

 and indeed through funding it in this way the council has retained  additional benefits from that contract and that additionality has not gone, er, to Capita: there is no benefit to Capita.

What additional benefits? Do tell.

And ... "additionality": what the f*ck does that mean? 

Mrs Angry is consulting her copy of the Crapita Guide to Corporate House Style for Executives of the London Borough of Broken Barnet ...

Oh - "additionality": lucrative profit agreed in secret at the expense of local taxpayers's reserve savings, thanks to the breakdown in the scrutiny process by lazy, uninformed and intellectually challenged Tory councillors. 
 
Well, well. How very interesting.



Last week, Mrs Angry wrote to all the Tory councillors to ask for their explanation of the £16.1 million pay out. Not one replied - either this is because the issue is so sensitive, or they simply did not know the answer - or both. She also wrote to deputy leader Daniel Thomas, who did not reply. He knows the answer, we must hope, and if not, why not? 

After the meeting, Thomas walked past Mrs Angry, who took the opportunity to ask him why he had not responded to her email. He regarded her in what seemed like a less than friendly manner, and gestured to the committee table behind him. You've had your answer tonight, he said, rather rudely. No, she replied, I expect a written reply. He then pretended he did not know what was in her email, as he has so many hundreds a day, and had not noticed it, which story was rather spoilt by the fact that he had just said, well, that he thought he had answered it in committee and then proceeding to let slip he knew exactly when it had been sent. He agreed to respond by the end of this week, eventually, and Mrs Angry looks forward to that.

Another person who owes Mrs Angry a response is the Tooting Twister, Barnet's spin doctor, who made the mistake of sitting behind her. Oh, he said, rather nervously, when she asked for a reply, you will get an answer ... and the answer is ... the investment by us was because it is cheaper. 

Nonsense, said Mrs Angry - try again. 

Still waiting, Mr Palmer ...

That was the line given at the Audit Committee, on the basis of interest rates on a loan - but the money is not being borrowed, it's being taken out of reserves. This means that not only are we losing the capital sum on deposit, we are losing the interest to us that would accrue. And as Mrs Angry established at the Audit Committee, the £4.1 million paid over to Capita for interim fees that never transpired, returned mysteriously on the Sunday after her question was submitted, was not accompanied by any interest payment by Capita, so what chances are there on this factor being considered since the change in the arrangements?

There is something badly wrong here: it smells wrong, it looks wrong, and it is time there was a full and open investigation of the entire matter of the capital investment. 

Mrs Angry has now written to the Section 151 officer to make a formal complaint, for all the good it will do, and indeed she believes that others have also done so. Is open government really the default mode of Barnet Council, Mr Naylor?

There would appear, on the face of it, to be £16.1 million pounds worth of reasons to suggest this is not the case. 

Stick that in the Guardian, why don't you?



Monday, 4 November 2013

Persons Unknown: the Bohemia occupiers in court


Barnet County Court is a small, relatively modern building, squeezed onto the site of a former primary school, tucked away in the centre of Church End, Finchley. 

It is usually a quiet place, dealing with family matters, and civil disputes: with a few modest sized court rooms, and a surreal post office type counter where visitors queue to hand in payments, or their petitions for divorce, sliding them carefully under the glass screen to be stamped by hard faced clerical assistants, while sad eyed single parents sit forlornly with barristers, discussing the terms of their child's living arrangements, and others come to pay off their fines from unpaid council tax arrears, or cry over a confrontation with bailiffs. 

In short, it is a place of subdued emotion, where people go at the most vulnerable times in their lives, and the atmosphere is one of relentlessly slow bureaucracy, tempered with quiet despair.

Sometimes in life, you find yourself in conflict with the law, or seek to change your position within the limitations it imposes, and attending court becomes an obligation, or an inevitability.

Last year, this courthouse was the venue for the hearings regarding the occupation of Friern Barnet Library - the People's Library, an example of direct action, theoretically a challenge to law, leading to a re-examination of legal status, invoking aspects of human rights' legislation, and ending with an outcome that perhaps no one could have expected - the saving of a library, and the creation of a new sense of community. 

In the least likely outcome of all, the local Tory councillors try very hard to present this overwhelming triumph of the occupy movement as their own accomplishment, and a Big Society achievement.

After the success of the saving of Friern Barnet Library came another occupation - the same characters who reclaimed the library moved into the Bohemia pub, which had shut overnight, during the summer, causing immense upset to the drinking classes of North Finchley, and so many other local residents who had begun to see the place as a real community centre, and a beacon of hope for the otherwise struggling high street.

The pub had closed not because of a failure to make money, but due to arguments between tenants and leaseholders. The doors were shut, boarded up, and the Bohemia sat dark, empty and abandoned, an eyesore, right in the middle of the town centre. Rumours abounded that a supermarket chain was about to move in, causing further dismay amongst the local small traders, already battling against the continuing impact of the council's punitive parking policies.

One night in September, a group of occupiers let themselves into the premises, and announced their intention to save the pub for the community.  

Since then Phoenix, Daniel, Petra, Mordechai and others have acted as caretakers for the property, living there and opening it up to local residents, with all sorts of community functions, including live performances, ranging from bands, cabaret, stand up and even burlesque ... and then last week, predictably, came the news that notice had been served by the owners to repossess the property. 

A crowd of supporters accompanied the occupiers to court this morning, filling the waiting area and causing evident anxiety to court officials unused to such a high number of visitors. No need: everyone was perfectly well behaved, and most were veterans of the previous case. Only a few of us could squeeze into the tiny courtroom, however.

It was revealed that only ten minutes had been set aside for this hearing, which seemed rather extraordinary. Judge Joshi decided that the case required extra time, and has deferred the full hearing to later this week, with a two hour slot required at another court, as there are no spaces available here in Barnet. She reminded the court that the proceedings were in order to find what is legally right, rather than morally so. An interesting comparison, you might think. She noted Phoenix's statement that he was in favour of the move to mediate, rather than litigate, and that there was no reason for such action to cease.

Some case management did take place during today's hearing. The repossession order is being applied for on behalf of Antic Ltd, against 'persons unknown'. Counsel for Antic was a Mr Fain. 

There followed some protracted deliberations as to whom this referred. Phoenix was named as the party, along with Daniel Gardner, and other parties may apply to be attached to the proceedings. 

Phoenix's 'Mackenzie's Friend', Mr Sagar, asked an interesting question - in the event of costs being awarded against the claimant, how likely is it that this will be paid if Antic is in liquidation?

Antic, said Mr Fain, is not in liquidation - it is in administration. 

Mr Fain now asked for proof of identification of the named parties. 

Phoenix did his best to address the judge's attempts to define some sort of suitable documentation. Driving licence? No - he does not drive. Passport? He has not been out of the country for 20 years. Bank statement, National Insurance number? Council tax? Any photo ID?

Phoenix shook his head, and politely explained that he has lived in occupied properties all his adult life.

This was a curious indictment, thought Mrs Angry, of the world we live in.  A place where persons unknown cannot become known unless they have been documented, and labelled, and carefully numbered. Where Tory ministers can adopt multiple personae in their business lives, and yet demand accountability from others in every other context. Where companies lie hidden behind other names: shell companies, offshore companies - phoenix companies - and remain anonymous, but an individual, an ordinary citizen, must join the system, or become a non person, invisible, and without rights.

As we left the courthouse, and Phoenix and his supporters gathered outside for photos, Mrs Angry noted, at a discreet distance, an occupied police van parked across the road. One of the squatters had told her some undercover police had been on the premises last week, sussing the place out. Is this a coincidence? Maybe.

Another thought, which may or may not be true: a rumour is drifting about that Tesco has recently shown renewed interest in the Bohemia site. The property is very large, and would nicely accommodate a supermarket, whilst offering an additional profitable opportunity for development. Is this what we, the residents and shopkeepers want? No. Is this what we will get? Probably, if we do not continue to fight for a community pub.

And here is a chilling thought. As part of the second massive privatisation contract, Capita Symonds will be running planning in this borough. Tesco is a client of  ... Capita Symonds. Conflicts of interest, then, of this sort, how will they be managed, now we are living in Capitaville? 

The honest answer is - we do not know. We should know, because the DRS Joint Venture contract has just been published - or rather bits of it have been. The rest of it, including the section on, yes, conflicts of interest, looks like this:



Quote: 'the default mode of Barnet Council is open government' - Mr Chris Naylor, Section 151 officer, in the Guardian, last week.

Unfortunately for Mr Naylor, the default mode of Mrs Angry is eternal cynicism, and a sense of martyred commitment to the vocation of armchair audit, and citizen journalism.

And speaking of which: time for some fun at this evening's council meetings ... 

Capitaville, week ten: Mrs Angry and the wall of silence ...


 “You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”  


George Orwell, 1984


On Thursday Mrs Angry decided to ask the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet to account for the frankly staggering revelation that we have not only not received the promised capital investment from Capita that was meant to justify the need to outsource so many of our council services, they have taken £16.1 million from the authority's reserves and given it to Capita to cover the expenditure.

Dear Councillors

I would like to ask you to read the latest post on my blog, Broken Barnet, on the subject of the failure of Capita to deliver the investment promised to us as the keystone of the One Barnet outsourcing programme.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/broken-barnet-plc-bank-that-like-to-say.html

I invite the Conservative members of this council to explain to me, and to the residents and tax payers of this borough, why you have continually promoted this massive act of privatisation on the premise that there is no alternative, due to the need for the capital investment that this deal would produce, when in fact completely the reverse is true, and we now find that you, our elected representatives, far from receiving this promised investment, have instead taken £16.1 million out of our saved council tax, and given this to Capita to cover the required expenditure.

The leader of the council and his Cabinet refused to counter any consideration of an in-house option as an alternative to privatisation on the very grounds that we could not afford the capital investment.

We now find that while continuing to repeat this excuse, preparations were in hand to substitute the investment from Capita with money from our reserves.

An in-house option would of course have saved the jobs of hundreds of employees, and retained all savings made from sensible efficiencies. A competent management of procurement, for example, would have prevented the waste of many millions of pounds of taxpayers money, rather than oblige us to pay Capita a premium in return for a limited amount of savings, beyond which all profit will be for their shareholders, rather than the authority.

Perhaps Councillor Cornelius, his Cabinet colleagues, and the Conservative members who failed to scrutinise the outsourcing programme, or the contract, will now have the honesty to admit to what is surely a gross betrayal of the best interests of the residents and taxpayers and voters of this borough?

Yours sincerely


Mrs Angry

Mrs Angry rarely bothers to write to Tory councillors en masse, or indeed individually, but on such occasions there are usually a number of interesting responses, not agreeing with her viewpoint, necessarily - shocking, I know - but replying anyway, for whatever reason.
Can you guess how many replies to this email there have been?

None at all. 

Mrs Angry thought then that she would ask the deputy Conservative leader Cllr Daniel Thomas to explain the matter to her. He has been one of the most outspoken supporters of One Barnet, and always very keen to promote the best use of taxpayers' money. He would, she was sure, be eager to extoll the virtues of handing £16.1 million of our hard earned cash over to a profiteering private sector company, in the form of a big fat cheque, neatly avoiding the embarrassing task of asking for the promised money from our new friends at Capita:

Dear Cllr Thomas

Yesterday I sent the following email to all Barnet councillors and invited the Conservative members to read my latest post and explain to me why you have promoted the Capita contracts on the basis of the promised investment this would bring, when we have now discovered that in fact the reverse is true, and that you have taken money from taxpayers' money held in reserve, and given it to Capita for this purpose.

You must know that this is represents a complete betrayal of trust, and yet not one of you has had the courage to address this, or to attempt to justify what you have done.

As one of those most closely associated with supporting the privatisation programme I ask you now to respond to this email and have the integrity to explain why the Conservative administration has misrepresented the true nature of this shabby deal and committed this borough to a ten year partnership of abject submission to Capita, rather than to retain direct control of our services and protect local jobs.

Yours sincerely


Mrs Angry

Councillor Thomas could not wait to reply. At least in Mrs Angry's feverish imagination:

Dear Mrs Angry

Yes, you are quite right, as usual, and I can only apologise for the impression caused to the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet that Capita would be providing this money upfront. I believe that this confusion may have been caused by statements made by Conservative members of the council, senior officers of the council, and indeed the council's own website, to the effect that Capita would be providing this money upfront. What we should have said, to be clear, was that Capita would not be providing this money upfront.

I hope this is clear.

Yours sincerely, 

Cllr Thomas

Disclaimer, for the satirically challenged: this is a JOKE

Cllr Thomas has not responded in this way. 

Cllr Thomas has not responded at all.

Why is that, do you think? 

Mrs Angry's has been reading and rereading all the interesting statements made by our Tory councillors over the last year or so, regarding the deal with Capita. This has made Mrs Angry's head spin, in an awful muddle. Look at this statement made by leader Richard Cornelius on 6th December, when he announced that he and his Cabinet had approved the NSCSO contract:




Council leader Richard Cornelius said the combination of a saving to the taxpayer of a million pounds a month and an £8m investment in technology by Capita made it a "very, very good deal for the Barnet taxpayer".

Oh: £8 million on technology alone - very generous. And so the leader and the Cabinet did approve the deal on this basis, then, did it? 

Now please tell us when - since December 2012 - this crucial part of the agreement was dropped, and reversed, and we ended up paying Capita instead? 

If you don't mind.

Oh, and by the way: are you allowed to change such a substantial part of a contract in this way, without telling us?

Some of our Tory councillors are on twitter, and some of us have tried tweeting them to ask for their views on what appears to be a consistent and blatant misrepresentation of the fundamental agreement that was supposed to support the contract. 

No, no response.

Mrs Angry was reminded today of her post here - http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/capitaville-week-five-redundancies-and.html about the contractual obligations that the authority has to endorse and promote the wonderful deal with Crapita, an extraordinary demand written into the deal, and seemingly unprecedented in similar agreements. Remember this?

(c) The Service Provider shall use its conference business, "Capita Conferences," to provide the Authority with the opportunity to enhance its profile within the industry and to gain access to an effective forum for sharing and development.  

The Service Provider shall work with Capita Conferences to create opportunities for Authority staff to communicate the success of the One Barnet programme and participate in future conferences and for the Authority to shape the agenda and content of relevant future conferences.

The success of the One Barnet programme.

Are our elected members and senior officers able to voice any misgivings they may now have about the new partnership? Or would that be in breach of the contract?

Just a thought.

Amusing though, is it not, to speculate that the council which sought to evade accountability to its residents by failing to consult them, then by silencing all debate about its policies, and then by a self imposed silence in the face of all criticism, might itself be subject to the rule of censorship, now they have surrendered all autonomy and control of the process of governance to Capita?

Except of course that, ultimately, the joke is on us, isn't it?