Two press releases today: the first from John Burgess, the Barnet Unison branch secretary who has worked so hard, and fought so desperately, against the privatisation of council services, and the loss of hundreds of council employees' jobs:
"On Thursday 6 December Barnet Cabinet Committee will decide on whether to outsource approximately 540 Barnet Council jobs to multinational company Capita.
The
Committee will be voting to export local jobs to Banstead, Belfast,
Blackburn, Bromley, Carlisle, Darwen, Sheffield, Swindon, Southampton.
UNISON
has raised serious concerns about the economic implications about
losing local jobs and the knock on impact on local residents and small
businesses.
UNISON
is also concerned about the deliverability of the financial savings and
the implications for council tax and other services.
UNISON has published numerous examples of how these ‘too good to be true’ deals often fail to deliver.
The Council claims to have learnt lessons of other Councils however the reality is very different. At a recent Scrutiny Committee, literally days before the decision to recommend Capita was announced, two Conservative Councillors on the Committee said:
"When the visits were carried out who went on them and what did they learn from them? None of that is contained in here, six pages is desk top research. What members here are looking for are, what have you learnt from meeting up with councils face to face?
Another said:
"In fairness all we have here is a list of visits it doesn't say whether they were for one hour, one day, one week, it doesn't say when they were there, it doesn't say what benefit we got from them, it doesn't say who went, how detailed whether it was one person or a team, it's so sketchy it's absolutely useless, I'm afraid ..."
John Burgess, Branch Secretary said:
"The Cabinet Committee are going to rubberstamp this decision which Unison believes is a bad deal for tax payers of Barnet. The Council is gambling on a high risk strategy which has not worked elsewhere. Other councils are bringing services back in house in order to have more control over their spend. In the last month we have learnt from figures published via the Councils website that in total, the bill for One Barnet Advice in October alone was £1,099, 413.22 or £47,800 every single working day. This is political dogma gone mad".
Barnet and Camden Assembly member Andrew Dismore has also issued a statement:
He has written to all backbench Conservative councillors in Barnet, asking them to think again about their support for One Barnet:
“The
future of public services in Barnet is in the hands of the backbench
Conservative councillors. We know there is considerable disquiet amongst
them. They know they have no mandate for this wholesale privatisation. I
urge them to have the courage to stand up against this crazy plan,
which will cause so much damage."
Ironically, of course, even the former Assembly Member, former Conservative Brian Coleman, has spoken out against the folly of the One Barnet programme.
Cross party consensus on an issue of such significance is unheard of - but this is unlikely to have any influence on the determination of the Tories political leadership to support One Barnet unto the very end.
After the equivocal performance of Barnet Tory leader Richard Cornelius on Sunday's Politics Show, some of us may have wondered about the future direction of the one billion pound One Barnet programme of outsourcing.
Ok, the deal with Capita is all sewn up, and will be rubber stamped by our quisling Cabinet members tomorrow night, but Richard was keen to play down the significance of what he was doing.
Jabbing his finger, rather impotently, in what Mrs Angry's mother would have said was a very rude way, our leader claimed that 'only' back office functions of the council were being outsourced. Things which, he said, no one would notice. Planning? Well, he said, that only might be privatised ... oh, we thought, back here in Broken Barnet, but planning was part of the second outsourcing package, the DRS bundle ... is it true, then, that the Tories were thinking of dumping this part of the One Barnet programme?
No - no it was not true.
Look at this statement by Cornelius, now being sent to any resident who dares question the wisdom of the massive outsourcing of council services: Mrs Angry's comments in red ...
"Thank
you for your e-mail. I am making the assumption that it is the
elements of the One Barnet programme that include outsourcing that you
are referring to.
The
One Barnet programme is the council’s change programme and goes far
beyond a simple outsourcing.
'A simple outsourcing': that is to say, a one billion programme of privatisation, the biggest ever attempted in the UK ... but oh dear: One Barnet is now a toxic brand, and associated exclusively with delivering profit into the hands of rapacious private sector companies, so we must try to pretend it is something much more wholesome and beneficial.
We are, for instance, bringing recycling
in-house to work closely with the existing in-house waste service (at a
time when the majority of London authorities have already outsourced
waste collection). We are doing this because we believe this will give
the residents of Barnet the best possible service.
We are doing this because we changed our mind at the last minute, in a blind panic over the reaction of back bench councillors and residents to the mass sell off of council services.
Similarly
we are working with a local charity ...
aww ...a charity: look we are caring Conservatives ...
... to support residents by providing
help and advice to families with multiple problems. We believe this low
level early intervention can support families with problems before they
become families in crisis. The principle of the programme is to
identify and set up the most effective and efficient means of delivering
a service to the residents of the borough. This can take many
different forms. Sometimes this involves the outsourcing of services.
In many situations, it does not.
Oh - hang on: are you sure ... 'in many situations, it does not'? What? And erm, this approach is government policy, which generally you ignore, unless it suits your own bonkers agenda ...
As part of the programme, we are currently running two major procurement processes.
The
first, for the ‘New Support and Customer Services Organisation’
contract (NSCSO), will outsource the following council services:
· Customer services;
· Finance;
· Human Resources;
· Procurement;
· Estates;
· Information Services;
· Revenue and Benefits; and
· Corporate Programmes.
The second, for the ‘Development and Regulatory Services’ contract (DRS), will outsource the following council services:
· Regeneration;
· Planning;
Aha: planning ... that's funny, Councill Cornelius, because when you were on the telly on Sunday, you weren't at all sure that planning would be outsourced ... only 'back office functions' and planning only 'might' be outsourced ... hey, Richard, you weren't ... you weren't being deliberately evasive, were you?
· Building Control;
· Environmental Health;
· Land Charges;
· Management of Hendon Cemetery and Crematorium;
· Highways; and
· Trading Standards and Licensing.
The
NSCSO contract will be a Strategic Partnership outsourcing contract.
The benefits and risks of this were outlined in an Options Appraisal in
March 2011.
The
DRS contract is now planned to be outsourced as a Joint Venture,
Whoah, hold on ... this is news ...the Joint Venture, the decision by senior management, and in which you claimed, not so long ago, to have had absolutely no involvement is now after all going ahead. Well, well.
... of
which the Council would be a shareholder. Previously, we had planned to
outsource the DRS contract as a Strategic Partnership. As we explored
the offers from bidders during the procurement process,
Whoa again ... 'as we explored the offers from bidders ... we? You mean, as your senior officers cooked up a deal behind the back of elected members, without their knowledge or consent ...
... it became clear
that a Joint Venture would provide the Council with more control and
potential for increased income, given the nature of the services and the
opportunities that we believe are available for growth. Again, the
benefits and risks of all options were outlined in a formal Options
Appraisal and Business Case.
WHERE IT SAID JOINT VENTURE WAS EVEN MORE RISKY THAN A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP, YOU INSUFFERABLE FOOL.
And bearing in mind that you refused to allow any independent risk assessments of One Barnet, and withheld the internal risk register from scrutiny until obtained, via the ICO, after ten months of obstruction, this really does suggest that switching blindly at the last minute to Joint Venture is the act of a totally reckless and irresponsible political administration.
I, and my fellow Cabinet Members, have
received repeated briefings and information as we took the decision to
adopt the Joint Venture approach.
You only found out about the Joint Venture decision already taken, quite outrageously, by unelected senior officers thanks to the revelations of the local blogosphere, and you stated categorically at this point that you knew nothing about it. Any subsequent briefings have occurred since that time, and your reaction has been to roll over and let the senior management team screw you, before they screw us. Do you expect us to thank you?
The
One Barnet programme has been subject to an ongoing audit process.
This has included 6 internal audits, and 2 external audits. The
findings of these have been reported to the Audit Committee in line with
standard Council procedure.
Hmm. Some findings may have been reported to the Audit Committee. Have they been acted upon satisfactorily?
Why was the Risk Register never presented to the Audit Committee?
In addition to this, external reviews of
the NSCSO and DRS projects have been undertaken, and their findings
acted upon.
Who undertook these reviews? Were they independent bodies, or private consultants?
The
NSCSO and DRS projects will mean that external bodies deliver a number
of Council services.
A number? You mean 70% of all council services. That's a very big number, Richard.
The required levels of service delivery (which
meet or exceed those currently obtained by the Council) are stipulated
in the contracts. If standards are not met, the Council will (in line
with the contract) withhold part of its payment to the service
provider. Ongoing poor service delivery would lead to increasingly
severe penalties.
If you have bothered to read the small, print, Councillor Cornelius, and not relied on the 'briefings' of senior officers and private consultants, you would see that the penalties are capped, and dealing with ongoing poor service delivery will not only lead to severe difficulties for residents, but will be extremely difficult to rectify. See all the other examples around the country, if you need evidence of just how hard this will be.
In extreme cases, this would lead to the Council
taking over control of services (at the service provider’s cost) and
ultimately being able to terminate the contract.
Erm, no, actually: three assertions which are misleading, Councillor Cornelius. Perhaps you have misunderstood . Those briefings must have been awfully dull, and difficult to follow.
If the council has to take back control of any services, which is more likely than not, this will cost us a fortune, and present an enormous logistical problem - how will we do this, when we have got rid of the staff and expertise necessary to provide these services? And yes: extreme cases, only - define 'extreme' ...?
At the service provider's cost? In some cases, if there is disagreement over service delivery, we will have to continue paying the provider's expected 'returns' ie profits, even though they no longer provide the service.
Being able to terminate the contract? After protracted legal challenges, unlimited further expense to local tax payers, and a prolonged and very serious impact on the users of these sub standard services - the residents, tax payers - and voters - of Broken Barnet.
Clearly,
strong contract management is required to support such contracts. To
this end, the Council has restructured its senior management, and is
recruiting experienced contract managers. This is not resulting in a
net increase in Council staffing costs.
Strong contract management.
Mrs Angry has her head in her hands.
The same senior officers who presided over the almighty cock up of procurement in this borough are still in post. Responsibility goes right to the top - or at least it should in any well run authority. In case you had not twigged this, Mrs Angry is, on balance, not entirely persuaded that Barnet is a well run authority.
Within
the new model, complaints will be managed in a more consistent and
effective way through the improvements being made to our customer
services function. Residents and members will be able to track the
progress of issues online ...
Online. Yet again a privatised service, like parking payment, delivered in such a way that excludes significant sections of the service users, ie the elderly and disadvantaged who do not have online access.
... and the NSCSO partner will be incentivised to
deliver against targets (such as the proportion of problems dealt with
in a single phone call, and overall customer satisfaction).
'Incentivised'? How? With a box of maltesers for the telephone operator in Blackburn who answers the most calls for the lowest hourly pay?
Councillors
will be able to oversee and intervene in the management of complaints
in exactly the same way as currently but will have more up to date,
detailed and relevant information available to them. They will also be
able to hold the service providers to account through Executive and
Scrutiny Committees, as they currently do with in-house services.
Oh please. Half of them can't be bothered to open up their emails as it is.
They
will also be able to hold the service provider to account at dedicated
meetings, whose purpose is to review performance and set future
objectives.
Why did your own Tory councillors have to have this explained to them as late as last week's scrutiny meeting, and why did they seem so unconvinced by the argument?
As
a result of the NSCSO contract, we anticipate that there will be a
reduction of 46 posts (all figures are ‘full-time equivalents’ and
rounded to the nearest full post) by December 2013 and 176 by March
2023. 203 posts will be relocated outside of the Borough by the end of
December 2013.
You are also playing down the reality of job losses, and the effects this will have on the lives of council employees, and the local economy. Around three hundred members of staff are currently worrying about the loss of their livelihoods.
It is expected that at the end of December 2013 265
posts will continue to be based within Barnet (147 by March 2023). As
the DRS contract is still being negotiated, I am afraid I am not able to
provide equivalent figures.
How very convenient. Why not ask for a briefing on the projected figure for DRS now, so that you are properly informed?
The
Council is committed to delivering services to the public using the
most effective and efficient means. In many cases, this is not through
private sector provision. As is discussed above, we recently decided to
‘in source’ some Waste services, as we believe that this is the best
option in those specific circumstances. Outsourcing is not, however, a
new departure for the Council. We have, for example, routinely used the
private sector to provide social care services for many years.
Equally, some services used by large numbers of residents (such as our
gyms) have been externalised for some time.
Oh yes. Never had any problems with these areas, have we?
In response to the specific questions you raised about the content of the NSCSO and DRS contracts:
Well I didn't, but you are giving everyone this answer anyway:
· The
NSCSO provider has factored into its costs the need to update computer
systems to continue to provide the required level of services over the
life of the contract. Where new legislation requires significant change
or investment then there are mechanisms for sharing these costs – which
the Council would have borne in full if it ran the IT service in-house.
· The
NSCSO provider is committed to a presumption that the costs of change
can be accommodated by business as usual activity unless they can
demonstrate that the current resources deployed cannot deliver the
necessary work. A detailed change control process then requires the
provider to propose a reprioritisation of activity in order that the
change can be carried out without any additional cost to the Council.
Finally, if neither of the preceding options delivers an acceptable way
forward, the partner can propose a price to enact the change. However
the Council has access to the costing model upon which the original
service price was based, and this can be used to make sure that the new
price, or cost of change, is not out of line with the build-up of the
original price. There are a range of other measures in the contracts
that protect us in these circumstances, such as benchmarking and our
ability to audit in detail the costs being charged to the partnership.
What the f*ck does all that mean? Go on, explain it to us, in your own words ...
While
I have not read every element of the draft NSCSO and DRS contracts
myself ...
Why not? We are paying you to take responsibility for this £750 million sell off, are we not?
I am happy to confirm that I have been briefed on their
pertinent points regularly during their development by the Council
officers and external legal and commercial experts we have employed to
develop them.
Oh God help us: briefings? See above.
Clearly,
should Cabinet not approve the signing of the NSCSO and DRS contracts,
we would be required to identify alternative savings to ensure that the
Council stayed on-budget.
Right: you mean like consider the in house option your senior management team wouldn't let you review.
By way of illustrating of the scale of the
impact on the Council, the annual savings we will receive from the NSCSO
contract equate to the aggregate of our yearly spend on Waste, Refuse,
Park and Green Spaces contracts. Equally, the savings we envisage from
DRS would roughly equate to our spend on Recycling. It is my belief
that outsourcing these services, with the concomitant guarantees we will
receive to financial savings and service improvements is a preferable
option to the ongoing ‘salami slicing’ of in-house services.
If anyone is going to get their salami sliced, Richard, it is most likely to be you. Better borrow a codpiece from Matthew Offord.
When
the NSCSO and DRS contracts go live, the role of Councillors will
remain substantially unchanged. Executive committees will continue to
make key decisions, while Overview and Scrutiny and Audit committees
will hold officers and private-sector service providers to account.
There is no direct link to these projects and members’ allowances.
What
a shame: because when this deal falls apart, as it inevitably will, your
allowances should be frozen, and you should all be held personally
liable, via surcharges, for committing us to this reckless contract with
no proper scrutiny by elected members, no process of consultation with
residents, and absolutely no mandate for this policy from the electors
whom you represent.
In the guise of a consensual relationship, Councillor Cornelius, you and your friends have forced One Barnet on us, while we were sleeping, and didn't know what you were doing.
Please don't think this is the end of the story, however: we're wide awake now, and fighting back ... and will continue to do so, until justice is served.
