Outsourcing: an open letter to the councillors of Broken Barnet

Tuesday 10 May 2011

Time to pull back from the One Barnet Programme

Dear councillor,

Next Tuesday 17 May is the council’s AGM. As residents we see this as an opportunity for the Council to do some stocktaking and signal a change of direction.

The One Barnet Programme (OBP) was initially presented as the new and innovative approach to the future of Council services. However, as soon as the first reports were published it became clear that there was little evidence behind many of the exaggerated claims being made by the consultants paid to advise on the programme.

We are aware that many councillors doubt whether OBP can deliver the savings and improved services Barnet residents expect. We share those anxieties.

Last week saw the publication of a number of articles in the mainstream press supporting the view that mass outsourcing does not save money, is high risk, and has a negative impact on staff morale. We hope you will take the time to read the extracts from some of those articles which follow.

The fate of Suffolk County Council

Suffolk County Council last September declared its intention to become the first “virtual council”. The Chief Executive pushing this programme, under the name New Strategic Direction (NSD), was being supported by Max Wide, on secondment from BT. As you know, Wide was one of the architects of Future Shape/One Barnet.

Since announcing their intention to outsource most services, Suffolk has been dogged by controversy. In December they were accused of ignoring a £100 million overspend on a deal with BT. (See article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/16/suffolk-council-bt-overspend.)

In the last few days there have been big changes in the Conservative Party in Suffolk as a result of concerns about NSD, and the scheme has been halted. The Guardian newspaper reports:

The previous council leader, Jeremy Pembroke, who helped oversee the plans... stepped down in April amid concern about the deeply unpopular changes. An inquiry was begun into morale at the council's legal department after an anonymous whistleblowing letter, sent to councillors, and believed to be from an employee, alleged staff there had been put under "unbearable pressure". The letter refers to "the poisonous atmosphere that exists at present" in the council.

(Full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/04/suffolk-virtual-council-plan.)

The BBC has reported on its website:

MPs were concerned that Suffolk County Council chief executive's policies threatened to "rip the heart out" of local communities. Negotiations are reported to be going on between the council and its chief executive Andrea Hill who has not returned to work after a holiday and is now reported to be on "extended leave". Suffolk Central Conservative MP Dr Dan Poulter said he and fellow MPs had been worried about the direction the council was taking under Ms Hill.

(To see the BBC interview with Poulter visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-13312597.)

Outsourcing should not be the automatic response to austerity.

The public sector IT managers’ association SOCITM has published a research briefing called Costs of outsourcing: uncovering the real risks.

The report’s author, Martin Greenwood, warns:

Outsourcing should not be considered an inevitable response to austerity. Even smaller organisations that need to gain economies of scale, and struggle to keep up with technological development, should consider collaboration and sharing with other local public services as a genuine alternative. If they do take the plunge into outsourcing, they should make sure they are aware of the pitfalls and know how to avoid them. ...It is a myth that outsourcing is cheaper, across most areas it is more expensive and people outsource for a range of reasons other than cost.

The report reveals that “when comparing the costs for any service, most elements will be more expensive if outsourced. The risks associated with benchmarking begin at the tender stage when suppliers will benefit from being experts at the process of negotiating contract terms, in contrast with the local authority that will go to market only rarely for a major outsourcing.”

(More details: http://www.socitm.net/news/article/76/new_briefing_highlighs_outsourcing_risks.)

The government is rowing back on mass outsourcing of public services.

The BBC reported a recent meeting between the CBI and the minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, where the minister explained:

...the government is committed to transforming services, but this would not be a return to the 1990s with wholesale outsourcing to the private sector – this would be unpalatable to the present administration. The government was not prepared to run the political risk of fully transferring services to the private sector with the result that they could be accused of being naive or allowing excess profitmaking by private sector firms. [Note of meeting by CBI]

(Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13273932.)

The articles above point to the folly of schemes such as the One Barnet Programme.

In the last two months the Council’s poor procurement and contract monitoring capacity has been demonstrated by the MetPro, Catalyst (legionella bacterium) and SAP cases. These have all harmed the Council’s reputation. Yet these are small contracts when compared to what OBP is proposing. With OBP the risks will be much higher.

We are asking the Conservative administration to bring OBP to a close before it is too late.

Millions of pounds of public money has already been spent on consultants, with no discernible savings achieved, and the losses could well be multiplied many fold going forward. Residents and Barnet council staff are increasingly anxious about the future of Barnet council services. Councillors should be too.

Last September the Leader said “I would always listen to the community” when she reversed the decision to increase councillors’ allowances. We are asking you to listen now.

There is still time to put the brakes on the One Barnet Programme. We urge you to do so.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Mrs Angry: enemy of the state

After the last blogpost, on the subject of Suffolk, Barnet and the BT Vital Vision links, Mrs Angry has noted some rather unusual visitors calling by. Goodness me, so many visits from a corporate BT intranet blogwatch: why is that, do you think? Hmm: and then, she noticed a very odd thing - visits from a site with a curious marker. Mrs Angry did some poking about to see what she could find out about this IP, and do you know, readers, if she were of a paranoid disposition, she might be feeling slightly concerned. Again.

This caller's IP is associated by some with a certain type of official snooping activity. Now, Mrs Angry is in a position to know that in fact blogs are subject to scrutiny by such enterprises (don't ask me how I know, as I will have to kill you all, and I can't really spare the time - too much ironing & stuff). This sort of thing is often kicked off by key word triggers. Oh dear. Things like 'surveillance' in combination with other words. Yes: one search by this site brought someone here via a certain politician's name and that word in a blog post - which actually was about the illicit filming of residents by our council's former security company, MetPro, rather than, say, stalking certain Tory MPs, shall we say - rather amusing, don't you think?

Some of the imaginative people who subscribe to the conspiracy theory view of life speculate about this sort of internet scrutiny and this particular IP, and link it, for example, to the use of undercover cops to infiltrate activist movements targeting corporate and government bodies, & who are alleged to get up to all sorts of mischief. Agent Provocateur is the word. Oh dear again. Of course, Mrs Angry has mentioned this term recently. Hands up. And sorry to disappoint, because actually, (& don't tell Dave Hill) it was in relation to a discussion of ladies' lingerie, rather than inciting anarchist violence (see the comments stream, 'Mrs Angry, never knowingly underplayed' ...)

So just to make it perfectly clear to visiting snoopers: Mrs Angry is not a rabid anarchist, plotting the downfall of capitalism. She is too lazy, too bourgeois, and too easily distracted. Oh, and the last time she got into trouble for misbehaviour in Trafalgar Square was when she was about four years old, tried to push her annoying cousin Christopher into the fountain, and laughed when a pigeon shat all over her grandmother - see above, the infant Mrs Angry, being firmly kettled by granny.

And er, haven't you got more important things to worry about at the moment?

Now, all joking aside, although Mrs Angry is amused by the attention she is receiving, she is also resolute in her belief that we citizen journalists have a perfect right, and indeed a duty, to raise issues of public interest, including ones that are critical of politicians and major corporations, and she will continue to do so, thank you very much. Since stumbling into this business, she is frankly staggered by the extent of dubious acitivity within the secret world of local government - and not just here in the badlands of Broken Barnet. As the push for private outsourcing rolls relentlessly on, all the more reason for constant vigilance of the workings of our politicians, senior officers, and would be contractors.

In the last couple of blogs we have mentioned the interesting developments at Suffolk County Council, where another Tory council has, like our lunatic administration here in Broken Barnet, dedicated itself to a programme of massive outsourcing and privatisation of council services. On the brink of electoral disaster, the Tory backbenchers on Suffolk council revolted, and the leader resigned, followed shortly by the announcement that there would be an interval of 'reflection' and that the controversial Chief Executive, Andrea Hill, will now be enjoying an extended period of 'gardening leave'.

According to a BBC story today, Ms Hill's leave coincides with an investigation into allegations related to 'whistle-blowing' complaints. She is sorely missed, apparently.

A friend has brought to my attention some amusing verses about Ms Hill written by the performance poet Luke Wright, which include lines such as:

"The last time we saw you your eyes were like ice
your mouth like a festering stab wound, not nice
insisting you keep your extortionate fees
while parts of your county are brought to its knees ...

"Ms Andrea Hill, the people of Suffolk
have seen your PR and they want you to stuff it
they’re still licking wounds from this right-wing insanity
they take little comfort from your doe-eyed vanity."

Mrs Angry has picked up her One Barnet biro, and is chewing the end thoughtfully, thinking naughtily about our CE, Mr Nick Walkley, and waiting for inspiration.

In fact, rumour has it that Ms Andrea Hill was interested in the Barnet CE job, so perhaps we should all be grateful for a lucky escape. He appears not to have been asked on the Vital Vision junkets, (by invitation only, don't you know) which I would take as a compliment, if I were he.

Anyway. The Guardian's Patrick Butler reports in his recent Cuts Blog (apologies, link problems still) that the electoral results from Thursday show the LibDems deflecting much of the Tory's flak for the Coalition's more unpopular traits, and suggesting that many Tory authorities are avoiding the worst effects of drastic cuts in budget by benefiting from generous grants from that nice Mr Pickles.

What is significant, however, is that it seems in areas where Tory ideological 'reforms' are being stuffed down electors' throats, there has been a disastrous reaction in the polls. Hello: Suffolk County Council got a kicking after all, thanks to the now discredited 'virtual council'/'New Strategic Direction' overseen by Ms Hill. And down in Brighton and Hove, the Tories' 'intelligent commissioning' plans were given two fingers by unappreciative voters, leading to a loss of eight seats.

Bearing in mind that such reaction is happening long before the cuts have really started to bite, or the massive scale of outsourcing begun, one might think that any Tory council that dares to continue along this line is writing its own death warrant. This difficult thought will of course take a long time to filter through the One Barnet bilge floating about in the otherwise empty heads of the dimwit Tory councillors in this borough. One or two of the more politically astute might just begin to worry about the personal consequences to their brilliant careers, though, and maybe, just maybe, we will start to see some argument amongst our Tory friends about the extent of their commitment to the outsourcing agenda?