Search Results for: mental health

Barnet UNISON submission to Barnet Council about #Coronavirus

Austerity, H&S, Health and Safety, Local, National, News, Report, Schools, UNISON Campaign
Dear Barnet UNISON members
The follow proposals have been submitted to Barnet Council today.
The following applies to all Barnet Council workers (Barnet Council workers includes all staff working in Barnet Community Schools.) during the period of the current #Coronavirus Pandemic.
• All sickness absence monitoring to cease.
• Full sick pay to be paid to all staff regardless of length of service or where their entitlement has reduced or expired.
• No reduction in pay for staff who are self-isolating or caring for someone who is at risk.
• No reduction in pay for any worker having to take time away to look after their children.
• No redundancy consultations.
• All restructures to go on hold.
• Disciplinaries where no risk to life and limb or others to be postponed.
• All other grievances/disciplinaries/capabilities/and Appeals to only go ahead on a case by case basis in agreement with the trade unions.
• For those workers who would be considered to be vulnerable to Coronavirus e.g. workers over 60 and those with underlying health conditions are to be allowed to self-isolate and/or work from home if they so wish.
• Barnet Council to seek information from their workforce as to what skills, expertise they can volunteer in order to assist the Council to be able to redirect resources to socially useful activities and offer training.
• Any worker volunteering to work at a higher grade will be paid at that rate.
• No worker will suffer a financial detriment from volunteering.
• Communication to go out on a daily basis giving clear guidance about what the Council is doing across all services. This communication should go out in a number of formats e.g. Email, flyers, Council website (not just intranet). This communication will be done in such a way as to demonstrate we understand the workforce will be the ones passing on information about the Council’s response and can play a useful role in carrying out and reinforcing these messages.
• Business continuity meetings to include representatives from the trade unions.
• Urgent reviews/risk assessments to be carried out with the involvement and collaboration of all staff to determine what work must be done and what can be done differently or postponed in order to reduce unneccesary contact with public e.g. telephone assessments instead of face to face meetings.
• Provision of counselling services for all staff to be promoted in all future communication in order to look after the mental wellbeing of the workforce
• To ensure adequate supplies for handwashing is provided for mobile workers.
• End hot desking.
• Where possible allow workers to vary working hours to reduce risk of infection on congested public transport.
• Bring the outsourced cleaning services back in-house.
Contractors
Barnet Council to seek confirmation from all contractors whose staff work alongside Barnet Council workers that they are also providing full pay for their staff who are off sick or self-isolating or needing to look after children.
Agency
Barnet Council to seek confirmation from all agency organisations supplying staff to work alongside Barnet Council workers that they are also providing full pay for their staff who are off sick or self-isolating or needing to look after children.

Don’t blame the Barnet bin workers: You couldn’t make it up.

Austerity, Health and Safety, Local, News, Solidarity, UNISON Campaign

This time last year we were in the fourth week of the Bin Collection changes. Barnet UNISON bin workers already knew that the changes would not work. But it had been made very clear that the views of the workforce were not seen as important to the successful delivery of the service.

How wrong was that?

By Christmas 2018 the collection was in chaos as this is one of the busiest times of the year for Bin collections.

UNISON suggested a way out but we were ignored.

In 2019 bin workers were scratching their heads wondering where all the money was coming from to pay the ever growing army of agency workers. A service that started at 6 am and finished by 2pm was now running up until 11 pm at night.

But every time UNISON asked about the rounds we were told it’s just “teething problems” and “things will soon be sorted.”

In 2019, at various Council Committees, councillors started to try to get a grip of what was going on as the agency spend continued to climb and fall then climb again. Sitting in the stalls listening to officers and councillors was something to behold, hardly anything discussed seemed to reflect what our bin worker members were telling UNISON.

After years of representing workers in Barnet Council UNISON is used to being ignored but in the case of the bin service it was still astounding that no one seemed to be able to sort out what was all so apparent to the bin workers.

Then we had the “sliding depot” or the “crack” as it was called in the depot. UNISON watched in bewilderment as the crack got longer, wider and deeper. The road was so bad the vehicles had to drive really really slowly just in case they tipped over.

Obviously someone in the summer managed to convince the Council that there was a serious Health and Safety risk and that the idea of part of the depot sliding down on to Oakleigh Road South was suddenly unpalatable.

Missed opportunity.

Here was an opportunity for the Council to put things right for Barnet residents. The depot is severely constrained by having half of it cordoned off for major building works that were bound to impact on the bin collection service.

“Here was an opportunity for Bin Collection change 2.0”

UNISON bin workers would say “Tear up the crazy area collection proposals” and organise meetings with the bin worker drivers who know the borough streets intimately to help sort out bin collection routes that will work.

UNISON seized on this opportunity to help; after all there was new management in after the departure of two senior managers. We hoped for a change. We said we would help get drivers to help sort the mess out.

What happened?

More of the same. The recent changes to the bin collection service that have moved some rounds to a Saturday took place without consultation with drivers. Early feedback from our members is that things are not going as well as hoped and still the spend on agency continues.

Last week UNISON heard that staff were being pulled for not completing rounds.

Barnet UNISON has made it clear to the Council that they will countenance no blame on our members for being unable to make something that is fundamentally flawed work well for residents.

You couldn’t make this up but it is true.

With all the changes of managers and a depot that is falling apart our amazingly loyal bin workers on whom we all rely, still come into to do a difficult dirty job on low pay.

Don’t blame them for the changes – those decisions were made by others.

End the causes of Climate Change – a Call for Urgent Action and Solidarity

Climate Change, Local, News, UNISON Campaign

This is an Emergency Please sign our Petition now

https://www.change.org/p/london-borough-of-barnet-climate-change

End the causes of Climate Change – a Call for Urgent Action and Solidarity  Motion.

Branch notes:

  • The Earth’s temperature has already risen by 1 degree above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC report last autumn warned that we only have 12 years to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees. Carbon emissions need to be cut by 45% by 2030, and reach zero carbon by 2050 in order to avoid a dangerous tipping point.
  • Air Pollution is the number one cause of deaths from environmental impacts resulting in the premature deaths of 40,000 citizens and an economic cost of £54 billion.
  • The UK Government has been taken to the European Court by Client Earth over its failure to act on illegal air pollution levels and the Government has lost its case which means it must now act.
  • A large number of our members work outdoors and are regularly exposed to air pollution.
  • The tremendous impact of the school students strikes in shifting government complacency over climate change forcing them to amend the 2008 Climate Change act.
  • Greta Thunberg’s call for a climate strike and for adults and workers to join the global school students strike on the 20th September which will begin a week of action on climate.
  • The solidarity strikes organised by trade unions in Belgium and France.

 Branch believes: 

  • Climate change is a trade union issue.
  • Our members have the right to work in a safe environment and for any associated risks to be mitigated.
  • Our Council needs to do more to protect our members in the face of the Climate Emergency.
  • More broadly the future of our planet is at risk if we don’t organise now to force governments’ to cut emissions in line with the IPCC report.
  • That taxing the very wealthy and closing tax loopholes in line with Labour Party manifesto commitments will meet the cost of cutting emissions by 50%.
  • That we must keep the pressure up. The school students have led the way but the trade union movement as a whole must now act to ensure that they don’t fight alone.

Branch resolves:

  • To commits the branch into entering urgent negotiations with Barnet Council and other employers in order to identify the following:
  • The risks to the health and wellbeing of workers regularly exposed to air pollution.
  • What measures/protection can be put in place to mitigate the hard of air pollution?
  • What health checks can be made available to workers regularly exposed to air pollution?
  • The branch contacts our union to ascertain any possible legal claims for injury at work as a result of regular expose to air pollution.
  • To back the call for a climate strike on 20 September
  • To support the call by the UCU for the TUC to organise a 30 minute workday solidarity stoppage to coincide with the global school student strike on the 20th
  • To call upon our national executive to support the UCU’s motion at this year’s TUC congress calling for a 30 minute workday stoppage.
  • For our branch to argue for and call a stoppage on the 20th September and for our branch to campaign for the maximum possible show of solidarity with school students 20th

Colindale office UNISON H&S Inspection

Barnet Group, Barnet Homes, Care & Support, H&S, Health and Safety, Housing, Report, TBG Flex, Your Choice Barnet

 

Colindale office UNISON H&S Inspection

Background

Barnet Group to move staff and operations from Barnet House to new office site in Colindale. Move to commence June 2019.

UNISON representatives from the Barnet Group undertook a Health and Safety Inspection of the new site 12/4/19.

 


Housing Options Reception

 

Current arrangements – Barnet House

Client’s visiting Housing Options are initially held on the ground floor.

This means they can be searched away from Housing Options staff, and for security to confirm who has an appointment.

If there is an incident on the 2nd floor, clients can be held downstairs.

There is also space for client’s to wait and call Housing Options if they don’t have an appointment (as Housing Options is appointment only), although in some cases clients use phones on the second floor to contact benefit advisers etc.

UNISON notes that part of current security arrangements mean that when clients initially arrive at the building they can only gain access to the 2nd floor prior to being searched, and that the one member of reception staff on the ground floor is behind protective glass.

Current statistics on Barnet House anti-social, verbal and physical abuse incidents are too low – UNISON is concerned that there is a culture where abuse of staff is tolerated and incidents not recorded.

Proposed arrangements – Colindale

The proposed new reception has entrances straight from the street with clients queuing up and being searched in the reception area.

UNISON has been informed that there will be no barriers by the entrance, however there will be a reception desk with one or two security guards [to be confirmed], and a side room for more extensive searches.

Total security presence on the ground floor Housing Options Reception area has, as yet to be identified.

Concerns:

 

  1. As there is no protective barrier between clients and staff, clients could throw objects or liquids at staff without/before being searched.

  1. A violent client can push past security and gain access to staff without being searched.

  1. Customers in winter will not want to queue outside meaning they will be in the reception and potentially have access to staff without being searched.

  1. If there is an incident that requires security staff to deal with a violent client, there is no provision to stop other clients from entering the building.

  1. No way of stopping the flow of people to the entrance from outside the building whilst an incident is being managed.

  1. Housing Options regularly have violent clients who need to be removed from the building, there will be a safety issue in removing a disruptive client if other clients are queuing at the entrance.

  1. Housing Options clients include a high proportion of very vulnerable people, including children, who can be waiting the majority of the day for temporary accommodation – this will be unmanageable in the small space provided.

  1. Housing Options staff deal with many victims of domestic violence who may be fleeing violent and abusive partners. At the moment the proposed seating arrangements for people waiting for temporary accommodation mean that clients would be visible from the street through the large glass walls. This could potentially put both the victim of abuse and staff and other clients in danger if the perpetrator of the abuse sees them and would be traumatic for the vulnerable client.

  1. If a client doesn’t have an appointment there appears to be no place where they can call Housing Options to be triaged and assessed prior to seeing a member of staff. This needs to be resolved.

  1. General issues of safety in such a small space given that on a busy day Housing Options staff can have up to five or six families waiting to be seen by staff at any time, as well as families waiting for temporary accommodation.

  1. There does not seem to be any thought been given to the ‘maximum’ number of people that can be in the Housing Options Reception area at any one time.

  1. The Housing Options reception will be shared with Officers from Rental Income, Neighbourhood Housing, Antisocial Behaviour Officers and Leasehold Officers as the only secure interview space for staff to meet with customers. This will lead to severe delays in clients being interviewed. Staff may be tempted or feel pressurised into interviewing clients elsewhere in an unsafe environment due to lack of resources.

  1. Barnet Group Health and Safety Officers have not been given the opportunity to complete a joint inspection with UNISON.

  1. As there will be very limited space/privacy, clients visiting the interview area may be put in the position of having to disclose personal information and details which could be overheard by other members of the public, breaching Data Protection guidelines.

  1. There seems to be a lack of toilet facilities for clients in the Reception area and none in the waiting area.

Fire Safety

 

  1. Fire safety – Number of Fire Points. No fire safety documentation has been provided, as yet, in regard to the number of fire call points in each area.

  1. Disabled access – Unison request more details on this, particularly emergency procedures and evacuation protocols.

  1. UNISON is in ongoing dialogue with the Council and facilities in regard to evacuation protocol and PEEPs [see attached Appendix]

 

 

General Building Health and Safety Concerns

  1. No details available/provided of the building Temperature Control system.

  1. Toilets – at least one single gender toilet should be provided – Cubicles seem quite small for those who may need to wash upper bodies before prayer also wash hand basins are very small. Disabled toilets (public) Access? Mobility WCs should have grab aids on both sides of pan – not all users transfer from same side.

  1. Security arrangements for main building – can this be confirmed and Risk Assessments shared.

  1. Currently no provision where other Barnet Homes staff [not Housing Options] will be able to interview visitors. Lease Hold Services currently have visitors who drop off Right to Buy applications and attend RTB interviews and financial interviews. Rental Income Team, Neighbourhood Housing and Antisocial Behaviour Officers will need access to secure interview areas. Operations guidelines for these services need to be identified and fully Risk Assessed before the service is implemented.

  1. Main reception – the entrance doors partially obscured by stairs to 1st floor and a pillar, what security provision has been made to cover the ‘blind spot’?

  1. Roof garden – railings on the roof are low and easily accessible.

  1. Originally staff were advised that teams would have designated areas of work and on plans these were shaded in. UNISON has now been informed that all areas are hot desks. Does this mean that those who work from 10am will never get a desk?

  1. Cycle parking seems to be very limited – not under cover and just the metal hoop types – as the Barnet Group and the Council is encouraging staff to cycle to work more will need to be provided.

  1. Car parking Areas are located some distance from the main building – staff safety in walking to these areas needs to be Risk Assessed and shared.

  1. Car parks – need to be inspected for adequate lighting – it is unclear if any other safety measures will be put in place [such as CCTV] before the building becomes operational.

 

 

Risks

 

As there is no filter system for members of the public on entering the reception area clients will have to disclose personal details to security/reception and be overheard by other members of the public. The Barnet Group may be in held in breach of General Data Protection Regulations should a member of the public/client make a complaint.

Safeguarding of vulnerable clients visiting the Housing Options reception area is a priority – if victims of domestic abuse don’t feel safe to access council services and be seen by an Officer without the possibility of the perpetrator of the abuse seeing them then they won’t do it.

 

There is an overriding detrimental concern for Barnet Group staff Health and Safety putting the Barnet Group in legal jeopardy.

In addition, the Health and Safety of the Public could be put at risk leaving the Barnet Group open to litigation.

Staff in Housing Options have made it clear to UNISON that the proposed reception area is fundamentally unsafe.

As previously identified the recording/reporting of incidents at the Barnet House Reception is poor – This cannot continue at the new site.

UNISON is given to understand that many of these issues have been raised by staff and line-managers across the whole of Housing Options, but as yet the concerns have not been addressed.

If frontline staff are essentially expected to work in a dangerous environment UNISON will be left with no alternative other than to act on members concerns, inevitably leading to a breakdown in Industrial Relations, if the identified risks are not addressed before Housing Options reception becomes operational.

 

Recommendations

 

  1. Meaningful dialogue between UNISON, management and staff in regard to Housing Options reception to resolve the issues identified and the suitability of the Colindale site.

  1. Security provision to be identified and established, (including lines of reporting and training) and fully Risk Assessed before the building becomes operational.

  1. Public access procedures identified and fully Risk Assessed.

  1. Anti-social behaviour policy in regard to prospective clients to be produced and a zero tolerance of abuse towards staff to be implemented.

  1. Risk Assessments for the reception and interview areas, including those for violent and abusive members of the public to be completed.

  1. A further joint UNISON Health and Safety inspection in conjunction with Barnet Group Health and Safety Officers to be arranged to assess risks to staff and the public before the building becomes operational.

  1. UNISON to work in conjunction with Barnet Group Health and Safety Officers to encourage staff and managers to record/report any incidents of physical and verbal abuse. UNISON and Barnet Group H&S to co-operate, investigate cases of concern and produce joint recommendations.

  1. Safeguarding of vulnerable clients to be acknowledged and addressed contacting  the Safeguarding team at the Council about the risk to  vulnerable adults, children and the victims of domestic abuse visiting the Colindale site would be recommended.

  1. General Data Protection Regulation issues to be acknowledged and measures put in place to minimise risk.

  1. UNISON suggests that Housing Options clients use the main council reception when they first arrive, enabling clients to be filtered to the Housing Options reception once it has been confirmed that they are due to be seen by an Officer. This would significantly reduce the flow of people through the main Housing Options front entrance, It would also have the bonus of freeing up space as clients could wait in the main reception for temporary accommodation and the officers from the TA team (soon to be Housing Solutions team) come straight down in the lift to the main reception area . This would be a better solution for clients as there is a Costa Coffee in the foyer for their use while waiting to be seen.

Conclusion

Given the unpredictable nature of Housing Options operations as the tragic incident on the 2nd floor last year demonstrated – UNISON recommends that the concerns of staff, managers and Trade Unions should be fully addressed and the suitability of the proposed Colindale site fully assessed before the Housing Options Reception Area becomes operational.

 

 

EasyCouncil end of Term Report is a #Fail

Austerity, Local, News, Report

“An increasing number of high risk and medium risk findings relate to the financial management practices in place at the Council, specifically those around income and expenditure monitoring. A failure of the control environment around financial management could significantly exacerbate the already extensive financial pressures on the Council and increases the risk of fraud. A significant internal fraud issue was identified at the Council during 2017/18; a criminal investigation is ongoing in relation to this matter but it highlights the risks that can crystallise if the lines of defence are not appropriately designed or operating as intended.”

(Source: The London Borough of Barnet, Annual Internal Audit Opinion, 2017/2018, http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s47416/Appendix%20-%20Annual%20Internal%20Audit%20Opinion%202017-18.pdf )

Barnet UNISON notes the serious risks and issues detailed in “The London Borough of Barnet, Annual Internal Audit Opinion, 2017/2018.”

The Audit Committee meets on Tuesday 17 July, 2018, 7 pm at Hendon Town Hall, The Burroughs, London NW4 4BG

Barnet UNISON opinion.

The most shocking omission for the Audit Committee is the failure to provide the detailed review undertaken by Grant Thornton UK LLP (GT)

 “1.17 The Council subsequently employed Grant Thornton UK LLP (GT) in January 2018 to undertake a detailed review to fully understand and document the fraud itself through a forensic review, identify the reasons that the alleged fraud could occur, including weaknesses in the control environment and to identify lessons learned. The Council engaged an external provider as this ensured that the circumstances around the alleged fraud were the subject of an independent review, as well as adding capacity.

1.18 The Grant Thornton report is attached at Appendix 1. It is currently in draft form to allow Capita a period of time to review and comment on its accuracy. As the report contains financial and business information about Re and Capita and Capita has not yet had an opportunity to provide comments on its contents, it is not in the public interest to publish it at this stage. This report and further reporting information from the Grant Thornton review will be finalised over the next few weeks and months and it is intended that these will be presented to Audit Committee and any other relevant Council committee in the Autumn 2018.”

(Report of Chief Executive, Audit Committee, 17 July 2018 http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s47427/Report%20of%20the%20Chief%20Executive.pdf

On Thursday 19 July 2018 at the Policy and Resources Committee, Barnet Council is considering the future of the Capita contracts. The report produced by senior officers provides the councillors with three options. It recommends Option 2.

Review of Capita Contracts – Strategic Outline Case

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s47263/Capita%20Realignment.pdf

Barnet UNISON believes that informed decision making cannot be reached without the details of the Grant Thornton Review being made available to the members of Policy and Resources Committee and Barnet Council Taxpayers and residents.

There is a very real material risk that any decisions made without the publication of the Grant Thornton report could leave Barnet Council at risk of another Judicial Review.

Below are some extracts from a number of reports on the Agenda of the Audit Committee, 17 July, 2018.

The use of bold is our own, in order to help shine a light on the fundamental and systemic issues being raised at the Audit Committee.

1. The London Borough of Barnet, Annual Internal Audit Opinion, 2017/2018.”

 “There has been a significant increase in the percentage of audit reports receiving an overall rating of “limited” (from 11% in 16/17 to 25% in 17/18), and a corresponding decrease in the percentage of audit reports receiving a “reasonable rating” (from 78% in 16/17 to 61% in 17/18). This represents a clear weakening of the control environment at the Council.”

“A number of planned key financial systems audits were removed from the audit plan to avoid confusion or duplication with the review of controls separately commissioned by the Chief Finance Officer in response to the significant fraud issue identified during the year.”

 “As reported to the Policy and Resources Committee in June, the Council’s revenue outturn position for 2017/18 was £13.5m overspent. At quarter 3, the forecast position had been £6.6m overspent. The increase in overspend by quarter 4 was analysed in the Financial Monitoring Report outturn to Financial Performance and Contracts Committee in July.”

 “Internal audits undertaken during the period, including audits of key financial systems, demonstrated a weakening of the financial control environment. This included a number of areas where evidence could not be provided to confirm that basic fraud prevention controls were operating including segregation of duties for transaction approvals and reconciliations, proactive review of areas with a high fraud risk due to value or known issues, and user access to the key financial system of Payroll.”

 “During 2017/18 the Council has been dealing with a significant financial fraud issue. This matter came to light late in December 2017 and the Council responded immediately with the following actions: a criminal investigation commenced immediately by the Corporate Anti-Fraud Team (with relevant support where required from the Police); the suspect was suspended from work immediately and shortly after dismissed; and stringent additional emergency financial controls were immediately put in place to safeguard the council’s finances until a full review could be undertaken. An independent review of financial control and financial forensic analysis was commissioned and Grant Thornton were appointed to undertake this review.”

“Non-schools payroll – The payroll system access report was not regularly reviewed to ensure that access has only been granted to appropriate members of staff. Additionally, the overtime payments process was manual and as a result, payroll staff were not able to access details of the manager who approved an individual’s overtime payment, increasing the risk of payroll processing invalid or fraudulent payments.”

 “Pensions Administration – Contract monitoring meetings held to monitor the pension administration section of the CSG contract were not formally recorded by the Council and employer targets for the scheme administration strategy are not monitored. There was no scheme communication strategy or agreed fund administration strategy in place during the period under review.”

“Staff Performance Reviews – There is no super-user access to the Core HR system or central ability within HR to go into staff records to look at the quality and content of appraisal documentation. This may mean that there was not sufficiently detailed central oversight to be able to ensure that the performance review process was fairly applied across all service areas and staff groups. There was no secondary review process to challenge any missing or insufficient information within moderation panel forms, so the process relied on the HR business partner to assure the completeness and quality of these forms. Based on the audit work carried out, this was not happening consistently.”

“Water Safety – A lack of formal training for premises coordinators around legionella testing was noted.”

 “Transformation – The Way We Work – While a benefits tracker is in place which clearly outlines the key benefits of the programme, there was not yet a breakdown of key milestones for each benefit, benefits monitoring was not yet taking place at a project level, and not all benefits had clear links between benefit description, baseline, measurement method and target. The review date within the assumptions log had not been filled in for the Office 365 project, and as such there was no evidence that these assumptions had been reviewed since they were first identified. Only five changes were recorded in the change log for the programme. Given the complexity and size of TW3 and the many known changes since the programme’s inception, this indicated that the change log is not being consistently used to record changes to the programme scope and budget and the agreement of these changes.”

“Staff Performance Reviews – An equalities analysis of performance rating distributions across different monitored protected characteristics was reported to the Strategic Commissioning Board (SCB) on 4 July 2017. However, this report did not effectively convey rating curves or allow the identification of variances between areas due to issues with chart layout and the quality of analysis. As a result, clear variances between service areas and variances around gender, religion and disability were not identified, investigated or reported on. This analysis also took place after the end of the moderation process, meaning that any variances could only be investigated retrospectively.”

“Issues were noted by internal audit with the extent to which statutory and internal deadlines for activity were met, increasing the Council’s potential liability for additional fees and charges, and legal sanctions and reducing the extent to which its own enforcement activity can be carried out. We noted issues with the performance of key employment checks including DBS and right to work checks, which could lead to fines, legal action and reputational damage. Key health and safety checks relating to water safety were not carried out in line with required statutory timescales. In a number of areas including some key financial systems, we noted that policies and procedures were not consistently in place or regularly updated. Policies and procedures are a basic pillar of a functioning control framework. Where they are missing or out of date, this indicates that the control environment has not been regularly reviewed and updated to mirror changes in local or statutory approaches to service delivery.” 

“Eligibility to Work – Pre-Employment Checks (Non-Schools) – We noted several anomalies in the DBS data provided to us for review. In some cases HR were unclear as to whether the post required or did not require a DBS check or of the DBS level required. In other cases, no DBS certificate reference was held. As a result, it was not clear whether all staff have the required DBS clearance. CSG Management also confirmed that there were no central, consistent arrangements for logging or following up Home Office right to work (RTW) approvals approaching expiry because RTW data is not held on the Core HR system to support the necessary reporting. The Council can be fined £20,000 by the Home Office per illegal worker. Pre-employment checks, covering identity checks (proof of address), DBS checks, National Insurance checks, reference checks and qualification checks (generally the responsibility of the relevant Council manager) were not undertaken consistently.”

“Commercial Waste – achieving income target – Formal notices had not been provided to companies requiring them to use commercial waste sacks, meaning that it is difficult to undertake enforcement activity relating to non-compliance. We noted enforcement processes involving the issuing of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) where businesses were unable to provide their commercial trade waste agreement. However, intended enhancements to the enforcement process, involving the review and decision making of customer cases following the FPN enforcement process had not yet been fully introduced. Vehicle tracker monitoring and vehicle inspections were not carried out in accordance with the frequency laid out in procedure documents. Performance monitoring had not identified this issue.”

“Water Safety – Performance of water safety testing did not consistently happen in line with required timescales. In one instance annual water sampling testing was over five months overdue at the date of testing. Documentation was not consistently uploaded to Info Exchange to demonstrate that testing or remedial action had taken place.”

“Non-schools Payroll – Policies and procedures do not cover the overtime payments or processes and controls in place to manage system access.”

“While it looks like the 2017/18 outcomes are similar to 2015/16’s, if ratings were assigned on the 2015/16 basis, the number of “limited” reports in 2017/18 would increase to 12 (43% of rated reports), which represents a significant deterioration from 2015/16 in real terms.”

(Source: The London Borough of Barnet, Annual Internal Audit Opinion, 2017/2018, http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s47416/Appendix%20-%20Annual%20Internal%20Audit%20Opinion%202017-18.pdf )

2. Report of Chief Executive, Audit Committee, 17 July 2018

“Financial Control and Risk of Fraud

1.11 A referral was received by the Corporate Anti Fraud Team (CAFT) in December 2017 alleging that a substantial amount of money had been paid into an account belonging to a member of Re staff. A criminal and financial investigation was immediately initiated by CAFT which subsequently identified that 62 allegedly fraudulent transactions, between July 2016 to December 2017, amounting to the total sum of £2,063,972.00, had been paid into various bank accounts controlled by the individual. The individual is no longer working for Re. The individual has been charged with two counts of fraud by abuse of position under the Fraud Act 2006. The case is currently listed for hearing in Harrow Crown Court. The sum has been repaid to the Council by Re and Capita has confirmed that it has underwritten this loss.

1.12 Following this discovery, the Council immediately took action to tighten financial controls and initiated an independent report into the wider financial control environment across the organisation.

1.15 The Council immediately put into place a new system of approving CHAPs payments. As these “on the day” payments are approved outside of Integra or any feeder systems that interface with the financial ledger, such as the Social Care system, approval for payments take place. The new systems went live during December. The system introduced six stringent effective new controls.

1.16 A dual authorisation process was also introduced for the release of payments from Bankline, the application through which CHAPs payments are made, so that in additional to a CSG employee, a Barnet Council employee must sign off each payment release in the system.

1.17 The Council subsequently employed Grant Thornton UK LLP (GT) in January 2018 to undertake a detailed review to fully understand and document the fraud itself through a forensic review, identify the reasons that the alleged fraud could occur, including weaknesses in the control environment and to identify lessons learned. The Council engaged an external provider as this ensured that the circumstances around the alleged fraud were the subject of an independent review, as well as adding capacity.

1.18 The Grant Thornton report is attached at Appendix 1. It is currently in draft form to allow Capita a period of time to review and comment on its accuracy. As the report contains financial and business information about Re and Capita and Capita has not yet had an opportunity to provide comments on its contents, it is not in the public interest to publish it at this stage. This report and further reporting information from the Grant Thornton review will be finalised over the next few weeks and months and it is intended that these will be presented to Audit Committee and any other relevant Council committee in the Autumn 2018.

1.19 The Internal Audit programme has been focused on internal financial controls for 2018/19. This will ensure that sufficient scrutiny and external challenge is applied to the robustness of the control environment.

OUTCOME: A tightened financial control environment and reasonable or substantial assurance on internal financial control audit reports throughout 2018/19.”

“1.34 A review of the Council’s senior management structure has been initiated and will come to Committee in the autumn. This will take into account the proposed changes to the Capita contracts and address matters in respect of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities which are highlighted in the Annual Governance Statement and Head of Internal Audit Opinion.

1.35 It is important that senior management roles and accountabilities are regularly controlled and this review will need to take into account the changes that are being proposed in the Policy and Resources Committee report on the Council’s contracts with Capita.

1.36 This review will come to Constitution and General Purposes Committee in October 2018 and will be implemented by April 2019.

OUTCOME: A new senior management structure in place for 2019.”

(Source: Report of Chief Executive, Audit Committee, 17 July 2018 http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s47427/Report%20of%20the%20Chief%20Executive.pdf )

3. Appendix 1 Corporate Anti-Fraud Team (CAFT), Progress Report: 1 April – 30 June 2018

“4. Noteworthy investigation summaries: –

Corporate Fraud

Case 1 – Case 1 – relates to Financial Proceeds of Crime Case and a significant fraud by a member of staff working for Re (Regional Enterprise Ltd), who was also previously employed by the council. A referral was received by CAFT in December 2017 alleging that a substantial amount of money had been paid into an account belonging to a member of Re staff. A criminal and financial Investigation was immediately initiated by CAFT which subsequently identified that 62 allegedly fraudulent transactions, between the dates July 2016 to December 2017 and amounting to the total sum of £2,063,972.00 had been paid into various bank accounts controlled by the individual. The individual is no longer working for Re.

The individual was summonsed to appear before Willesden Magistrates court on the 3rd July 2018, on two charges of Fraud by Abuse of Position, contrary to the Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. The individual gave no indication of plea and the matter was referred to Harrow Crown Court for a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing on 31st July 2018. Further details including the outcome of this case will be reported once the criminal proceedings have been concluded.”

(Source: Appendix 1 Corporate Anti-Fraud Team (CAFT), Progress Report: 1 April – 30 June 2018)

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s47418/Appendix%201%20-%20CAFT%20Q1%20Progress%20Report%201st%20April%2030st%20June%202018.pdf

 

Your Choice Care Workers update 23 July 2013

Uncategorised

On Monday 22 July UNISON met with Your Choice to discuss a number of critical concerns we have about the proposals and the current staffing situation in Your Choice workplaces.

Voluntary Redundancy

UNSION received confirmation that all staff seeking voluntary redundancy had now left and the proposed management changes have been completed. We understand not all of these posts have been recruited to and external adverts are going out.

Valley Way Consultation

We were informed consultation with service users, parents/carers is being carried out on a one-to-one basis for the Valley Way proposals. The consultation is expected to run to mid August, We have sought conformation of the actual date the consultation closes. We were told any decisions on this consultation exercise will be made at the end of August. If there are new changes to the original proposals for staff, consultation with the trade unions will begin at this point. We asked if there was further consultation would it be a 30 day consultation. We also sought the date when the implementation of the outcome of the proposals for Valley Way would be carried out.

Supported Living consultation

This next phase of consultation with service users, parents/carers regarding Supported Living is not expected to begin before the start of September and not expected to end before mid October. If following the consultation there are any differences in the original proposals for staff, consultation with the trade unions will begin at this point. Again we asked for confirmation as to whether the staff consultation would be a 30 day consultation. Finally we asked when the implementation of the outcome of the proposals would be carried out.

Shocking news on consultation.

UNISON has to report that in the meeting we were informed the consultation with service users, parents/carers will not include discussions about the proposed changes to salaries and terms and conditions of staff.

It is not clear to UNISON what Your Choice are consulting service users, parents/carers on. Given that Your Choice ignored UNISON’s advice that they should consult service users, parents/carers on 28 February 2013, it seems that once again service users, parents/carers are not going to have the critical information in this consultation process. We were informed of an involvement of a third party, we have asked who they are and what role are they playing.  We were also told Service users will be receiving an easy to read formatted consultation document and their opinions will also be sought.

“It is UNISON’s view this is a serious and fundamental flaw to the consultation process by omitting this critical information.”

BILS

Service users, parents/carers will be consulted only on the new venue for the service once alternative options have been identified. There is no timetable for this to commence at present. UNISON raised serious concern about the staffing levels for this service. We reported the service has now reduced from 10 to 3 staff. We raised issues around cover arrangements, responsibility for the building (recognising who has liability) and lone working. We stated Health & Safety measures in place are not robust or clear enough. Your Choice responded by saying service user numbers are down by some 50% and added they could not now afford to employ the full establishment. This was worrying news in that Your Choice do not seem to have been able to have secured the growth it urgently needs if the service is to survive.

Staff enhancement payments

Your Choice confirmed that any changes to enhancements (weekend/shift working) have been put on hold.

Benchmarking staff pay

We were informed consultants have been engaged to look at the benchmarking exercise and that they are looking at all issues around salaries and terms and conditions. Once they have their proposals and the board has considered their preferred option, consultation will open with the trade unions. We have asked for the name of the consultancy firm.

Compulsory Redundancy letters

Your Choice has sent letters to staff informing them of their position regarding compulsory redundancy. Our members who have been sacked as result of the Your Choice proposals have asked to be able to leave straight away. However Your Choice have told these staff that they must work their notice.

UNISON objected to this and queried why Your Choice Board allowed all the staff given voluntary redundancy to leave straightaway. It was this decision to let these staff go that has now created an unsafe and unstable working environment.

Health & Safety

UNISON  raised serious concerns regarding health and safety matters. We identified over use of ‘agency’ and “as and when” hours as being inherently unsafe in terms of consistency and the need for ongoing induction of new agency staff etc. UNISON felt the casualisation of the workforce is fostering a workplace whereby staff who are reliant on either ‘agency work’ or ‘as & when’ hours are less likely to raise health & safety matters in the workforce for fear of losing hours. To remedy this situation UNISON said it is critical to stabilise the workforce as quickly as possible. The first step would be to withdraw all at risk letters for support workers/remaining staff.

YCB said they would review this request and decide whether to withdraw these letters or not.

UNISON said it was clear there is a surplus of support worker roles across the services and we also believe permanent jobs can already now be identified as the volume of work being covered by agency and temporary staff indicates large numbers of posts are now being covered temporarily.

Finally we have requested a Health and Safety audit of all YCB settings following a serious incident involving a service user at one of the day centres.

Staffing levels at all Your Choice Settings

UNISON has requested a breakdown of the staffing establishment for each individual Your Choice workplace by job title, this should include the numbers of part-time and full-time agency staff covering vacant posts as well as the numbers of staff on as and when hours in each individual setting with a breakdown as to how many hours they work in an as and when capacity and which posts they are covering.

UNISON was disappointed to hear that whilst agency staff have been employed on short-term contracts (agency) a similar stabilising commitment has not been given to as and when staff. We want to see the prioritisation of as and when staff into permanent contracts.

Why are we where we are?

In the meeting YCB reported they regret the position they are in with respect to uncertainty around staffing levels but this was not a position they chose to being and not one of their making. UNISON disputed this as in the very first consultation meeting 28th of February UNISON strongly recommended consultation was carried out with parents/carers. YCB chose not to do so.

UNISON members

UNISON has been conducting a telephone survey of all of its members working for Your Choice in order we can directly speak to each member about their concerns and the support they need from UNISON. This has been an important exercise in informing our branch and keeping us up to date with what is an unsettling and changing workplace. It is important our members are able to feel they can contact the branch if they have any queries or concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNISON ‘Your Choice’ up date report

Uncategorised

6 March 2013

Dear Colleagues

Please find enclosed latest UNISON responses to the Your Choice in Consultation document

Email sent 6 March 2013

Hi Troy

Please find initial responses to the report presented to staff on Friday 1 March 2013. A fuller and more detailed response will be produced on receipt of information requested by UNISON. We have identified page numbers and paragraphs to aid a speedy response.

Page 4

Paragraph 2.4 “Review the structure which will result in 6.8 posts being deleted and the introduction of a new management structure.”

UNISON response: Deletion of frontline workers at a time when the Council is claiming to want to protect frontline services. Reducing staffing numbers on already stretched services will have a negative impact on staff health& wellbeing and the knock on impact will be service quality.

 “Deletion of enhanced payments and introduction of a 7 day week”

 UNISON response: This will place more pressure on low paid staff and result in experienced staff looking to leave as soon as they are able. It will lead to high turnover in staff which will have an impact on service delivery. The proposals will have a serious impact on staff morale and motivation. This is a very dangerous proposal.

 “Benchmarking of salaries with similar organisations and the introduction of a new salary structure in line with the findings of the benchmarking exercise”

 UNISON response: In the absence of any information and our insight in to the pay of the private sector this proposal means cutting low paid staff to below a living wage. This consultation report provides no information or evidence as to the reasons why the business plan agreed only a year ago was critically flawed. We are not in a position to know the scale and rationale for this attack on low paid care workers. It is our view that it is simply wrong to claim that paying poor wages does not impact on the quality of care.

 ·         3.2 The figure of £60,000 is a 300% increase on the figure provided to UNISON less than three months ago. This is more evidence that the business case was critically flawed. Please explain why the increase.

 Page 5

“The 345k owed to the Council. There is no information as whether the Council are going to insist on this repayment and if so what the consequences are for Your Choice.  

The paragraph starting “If no changes are made…”

·          Please provide a detailed breakdown of this £1million gap and a response to why this massive gap was not foreseen by the Council’s Legal Advisors and Consultants?

The paragraph starting “The move to payment in arrears….”

·          How has this happened?

·          Is this a cash flow problem or is it a profit problem or a combination of both? Is this linked to the block contract issue or a separate financial issue?

 Paragraph starting “The budget has …”

·          Please provide evidence for this financial assumption.

Page 6

3.5 What new business has been won by Your Choice?

·          What are the lower costs of your competitors?

 

Page 8

Valley Way a respite residential unit was required to provide a deputy manager, please confirm why this is no longer a statutory requirement?

Paragraph 4.3 Waking Night staff

We are concerned about the proposal to reduce waking night staff from 2 to 1 staff both for the staff and service users.

 Paragraph starting “In Supported Living …”

·          UNISON is concerned that waking staff are being removed from the Supported Living service, currently deployed in Agatha House.

Page 10

Paragraph 4.5 Supported Living Restructure

UNISON is concerned with the proposals to reduce the number of support workers from 23.2 FTE to 6 FTE. We believe this is de-skilling and reducing support at a time when the focus post Francis inquiry is on need for better trained and skilled staff and more supervision.

Page 13

·          5.1 Enhanced payments

UNISON is concerned by the proposals to remove enhancements for low paid care workers. We believe this will have an impact on staff morale and motivation and will impact on the quality of new recruits to the service.

 ·         5.2 Review of salaries

Please provide the results of the initial benchmark of your competitors.

UNISON is concerned that the benchmarking will simply result in low paid workers facing a further cut to their pay resulting in a demoralised workforce. This will impact on the quality of service provision.

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Email sent 6 March 2013

Hi Troy

I am requesting that the consultation is suspended on the grounds that we can not engage win meaningful consultation before we know the outcome of your proposed benchmarking exercise. As I advised at the opening meeting, your proposals to ring fence and assimilate are meaningless if as we predict the grades are significantly reduced. It is our view that this could lead to further compulsory redundancies.

Information requests

I am chasing up the email (see below) I sent on Friday as I am concerned that we do not have enough information for the trade unions and staff to be able to have meaningful consultation.

 

1.    Please provide a breakdown of the £1 million gap identified in first 3.2 (paragraph 3) of the consultation document.

 

2.    Please provide details as to how payment in arrears has had a significant impact on cash flow

 

3.    What is the commercial rate of interest which Your Choice will pay on the loan?

 

4.    Please provide the detailed business to case to demonstrate how Your Choice is going to be able to generate enough profit to pay back a £1million loan and meet the cost of the commercial interest.

 

5.    Does this £1million loan include covering the £345k which may need to paid back to Barnet Council? If not, how do you [propose to fund this gap?

 

Your report makes a number of significant proposals which will have a detrimental impact on our member’s terms & conditions, their health & safety. Furthermore we believe that if these proposals are implemented they will have a detrimental impact on service quality.

I am asking for an undertaking as to when we will be receiving a response to our email and the promise to provide the further information promised at our meeting on 28 February 2013.

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Email sent 1 March 2013

Hi Troy

Whilst we await further details promised in our initial meeting please can you provide a response to the following questions:

1.    Please provide a breakdown of the £1 million gap identified in first 3.2 (paragraph 3) of the consultation document.

 

2.    Please provide details as to how payment in arrears has had a significant impact on cash flow

 

3.    What is the commercial rate of interest which Your Choice will pay on the loan?

 

4.    Please provide the detailed business to case to demonstrate how Your Choice is going to be able to generate enough profit to pay back a £1million loan and meet the cost of the commercial interest.

 

5.    Does this £1million loan include covering the £345k which may need to paid back to Barnet Council? If not, how do you [propose to fund this gap?

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary

 

Privatisation of Social Care – What would you do?

Uncategorised

Speaking from experience nothing is more painful than seeing your own mother having to go into a care home. The feelings of guilt and fear are intense. Leaving strangers to look after your mother is very scary. This happened to me two weeks ago after a nightmare 12 months I had to witness my mother move into a care home.

I am a social worker so I have been on the other side, supporting service users and their families, but nothing prepares you for when it happens to someone close to you.

“Why am I talking about this?”

There are many reasons. We are living in an age on the brink. We have seen the ‘Fall and Rise of the Financial Empire’, bankers are back to their old ways paying out bonuses, the Coalition attempts to control their excesses have proved to be empty rhetoric. If I am honest at the moment I am sceptical that Labour would be any better (prove me wrong!).

We are on the brink of the dismantling of the Welfare State, something that was built at a time when we were in a far worse state than we are in now. Then we had politicians under pressure from citizens for a better future for their children. This was a time when public services began to develop and grow.

Now we are facing the destruction of public services, by that the opening up of privatisation of all public services. The Private sector companies increasing those based outside of the UK are chomping at the bit to take on lucrative contracts. Profits will be made out of public services.

There are many who see this as progressive, modernising but many more know and understand the private sector is in it for the profits first and their exploitation of public sector management is now legendary. How many more times must we hear about project overspends, poor procurement, councils trapped in partnerships with the private sector that don’t deliver the savings promised. This is public money, this YOUR money.

Earlier this week we heard that already £79 billion of public money is tied up in contracts with the private sector. There is no scrutiny or oversight of these arrangements, the audit trail is stopped by the words ‘commercial confidentiality’.

I have a view, ‘if the private sector want to deliver public services then they have to open their books for public scrutiny, if not take a hike!’

The bankers took £1,3 trillion of public money and have shown to be unrepentant, the coalitions governments privatisation plans of the public money is presenting the private sector with unrestricted, unregulated access to £billions of public money.

In Barnet, recently we have seen a catastrophic failure of the commissioning model for older peoples services that has cost the tax payer and exposed residents, services users and staff to exposure to Legionella bacteria.

Read on.

Background information to the privatisation of former Council care homes.

Barnet Council, 23 October 2000 approved the selection of Ealing Family Housing Association (now part of the Catalyst Group) to take a transfer of the majority of the Council’s elderly persons residential care homes and day centres on the basis that these would be replaced with modern purpose built facilities and achieve an ongoing revenue saving for the Council from the commencement of the contract.

Cabinet Resources Committee, 3 September 2007 noted the disagreement with Catalyst in respect of its Deficit Claim and also agreed that the dispute with Catalyst in respect of the Perryfields/Claremont Road and Merrivale/Child Guidance Centre sites swaps agreements, and the Project and Abortive Costs claims arising there from, be referred to arbitration and/or independent expert as appropriate.

Fast forward to Cabinet Resources Commitee 2 March 2011.

The Council lost the case at the Arbitration Court.

The cost of the claim and associated costs has been significant and can be summarised as follows:

Final Award to Catalyst (incl interest and costs) £8.674m

Council’s final estimated legal costs £2.000m

Outstanding issues (land swaps) £0.110m

Total cost £10.784m

Legal costs paid in previous years (£1.660m)

Provision for deficits since April 2007 £0.046m

Provision Required £9.170m

The total cost has been offset slightly by net income from Catalyst of £532,000 in respect of overbillings and the Single Status agreement which was agreed early in the Arbitration process by both parties legal teams. Hence, the resultant cost to the Council has been £10.252m.

£10.252m, that’s right £10.252m of public money on a contract that was supposed to (rewind back to 2000) ‘achieve an ongoing revenue saving for the Council’

Under the Equalities section it says:

The referral of the deficit claim to arbitration has not affected the residential and day care services being provided to older people. The service is inclusive and provided to all older people eligible for residential care or requiring day care. There are specialist units for people who have dementia, people who have learning disabilities and a unit for Asian people. However, any substantive changes to the care home contract for the provision of day care and / or residential care will be subject to a full equalities impact assessment.

“What has happened since this report was published?”

Three weeks ago our members working in Fremantle Care homes were told there had been a Legionella outbreak in two of the care homes Apthorpe and Dellfield Court. Our members received minimal information. Our union wrote to Fremantle asking a number of questions to which we have yet to receive a reply.

Barnet UNISON issued a number of questions and a petition calling for an independent inquiry.

Our questions are as follows:

1. When and where in each of the affected homes did they discover Legionella bacteria?

2. Have any residents/service users, staff, or members of the public contracted Legionnaires disease to date?

3. Who is responsible for monitoring the safety of the water supply in these settings?

1.    Is it Barnet Council

2.    Is it Catalyst Housing?

3.    Is it Fremantle

4.    Is it another organisation?

4. When was the last time each setting was checked and who has the records?

5. Does Barnet Council include issues like Health & Safety in the contract monitoring process? If not why not? If yes when were these last reviewed?

6. Are risk assessments on health & safety carried out in all of the settings?

7. As part of the contract monitoring by Barnet Council are these risk assessments reviewed? If not why not? If yes when were they last reviewed?

8. As part of good safeguarding practice have other residential care homes provided by Catalyst and Fremantle been informed about the outbreak and if so have the checks been carried out in those settings?

9. How was this allowed to happen?

10. What was the cause of this outbreak and what controls have been put in place to secure the safety of the residents, staff and visitors?

11. Was a risk assessment carried out after the Legionella bacteria was discovered? If yes, what did it say and what control measure were put in place? If not why not?

12. Have the carer’s/relatives of residents and service users using these services been informed that a ‘service improvement notice’ has been issued?

Since we launched the Petition we have learnt that Catalyst Housing Group have been issued an ‘improvement notice’ this action taken by the council indicates there seriousness of the situation and reinforces the need for an independent public inquiry.

“What is an improvement notice?”

Section 21 HSWA1 states that, where an inspector is of the opinion that a person is contravening one or more of the relevant statutory provisions, or has contravened one or more of those provisions in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated, s/he may serve an improvement notice. The notice should:

  • state that s/he is of that opinion;
  • specify the provision(s) in question;
  • give particulars of the reasons why s/he is of that opinion;
  • require the person to remedy the contravention or the matters occasioning it; and
  • specify the period for compliance, which should be not less than 21 days from the date of service of the notice, being the period in which the recipient of the notice may lodge an appeal with the employment tribunal.

“Just what is going on in these homes?”

I have worked in social services for over 20 years and in my opinion older peoples services are always undervalued, it says something about our society when you hear in discussions about social care and health needs for older people the words “burden as in burden on the state”.

Most of us will reach old age and most of us will develop physical and mental conditions which will require services. When that happens believe me, you will want to have a conscientious well trained member of staff caring for you. You will want your home to be a safe place to live and feel secure in the knowledge that someone is looking out for you.

My question to anyone who is reading this is “What would you do if your mother, father, close friend was living in a care home where there had been an outbreak of legionella?”

·         Would you want to know if it was safe to stay in the home?

·         Would you want to know how this happened?

·         Would you want to know who was responsible?

·         Would you want an independent inquiry?

If you answer yes to any or all of these questions then please sign our petition here and send a message of support to john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

Easy Council ‘no frills’ Planning Privatisation report– exposed!

Uncategorised

On Tuesday 3 November the Trade Unions published a report entitled “Critique of the Development and Public Health Services Options Appraisal One Barnet Programme London Borough of Barnet” detailing serious and fundamental flaws with this project. The report was produced by Professor Dexter Whitfield, Director, European Services Strategy Unit with contributions from our members working in the services included in this project.

The reports states:

“The report contains many sweeping assumptions that are not supported by facts, empirical evidence or case study experience.”

“The Council has not obtained value for money from this consultancy contract on the basis of the scope and quality of the options appraisal.”

To read the full report click here

Future Shape Project – now you see me now you don’t!

Uncategorised

The Development & Public Health Services Future Shape Project formerly known as the Regulatory Services Bundle was published online here

Open the PDf and scroll down to page 20. Click on the table entitled Options Scoring Matrix. Copy and paste into a word document and ‘Hey Presto’ you can see the scoring.

I have never seen this sort of thing before, is it deliberate or is it a mistake and why should the details be secret?

The Trade Unions will be producing a report in response to the Options Appraisal which even from a cursory glance is full of contradictions assumptions without supporting evidence and quite insulting to staff. Just what were thinking when they wrote this “But it is also very clear that the services require a fresh injection of intellectual capital..”

Many of our members working in this area have let me know they have been hurt by this comment.

If I was a Barnet tax payer I would be pleased to see that almost all of these services are  high performing and low cost. It is difficult to see where the 25% cuts and the 20% profits for the private sector are going to come from……or is it?

Answers on a postcard.

My guess it has to be staffing or something more fundamental a cut back on what is provided.

It is not too late if you have any question on the content of this Options appraisal please send your comments to john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

1 … 14 15 16