BP Oil disaster & the Barnet Council Future Shape programme

What have the BP and Barnet Councils Future Shape Programme (otherwise known as easyCouncil) have in common?

They both rely on contractors to deliver services and both have experienced problems with contractors recently e.g. Barnet Council with Catalyst and Connaught  and BP with Haliburton and Transocean,

 What is interesting reading the report on what happened is the loss of control when you rely on contractors and sub-contractors to deliver services. It is stark warning to any public service organisation of just what can happen when you outsource services. When things go wrong it will land on your doorstep, and more often than not, the contractor walks away.

But this is not new, which is why it is surprising Barnet Council are fast tracking the Future Shape programme, a programme which is relying on contractors to deliver services and make massive savings. The haste that the programme is moving suggests we are not learning our lessons.

But it’s not as if we have not seen more serious consequences closer to home. Just recently we have had a report into the Potters Bar inquest which took eight years and no criminal prosecutions. Jarvis (contractor) disappeared, like contractors seem to do when thinks go wrong…Metronet anyone?

The Future Shape programme has been re-branded as ‘OneBarnet’. Does anyone remember when the Post Office changed their name to Consignia? I wonder which consultant came up with that bright idea? How much did that cost the Royal Mail or more accurately the public purse!

Anyway, I don’t know why they want to re-brand Future Shape to ‘One Barnet’. You only have to look at the Future Shape Programme to see ‘whichBarnet’ would be a more accurate description. The Programme is actively looking to several private sector companies to deliver services to Barnet residents.

 

HOME CARE Contracts in Barnet : The reality of out-sourcing.

In 2002 the Council’s Home Care service was outsourced to Housing 21 with the existing staff complement TUPE’d over to this new employer.

As the years went by there have been restructures and the Council introduced CM2000; which meant that carers telephoned the office at the start and end of their allotted time with the service user. More recently there has been a reduction in the allotted visit times from the usual hour to separate slots of only 15, 30 or 45 minutes per visit. Hsg 21 provided some 3000+ hours of home care to elderly and vulnerable Barnet residents

The Council had many different providers for the various Home Care contracts and then last year there was the ‘Re-ablement project’ of 6 weeks of intensive regular support to aid early hospital discharges which Hsg 21 pilotted. Subsequently the contracts were re-tendered with a specialised ‘Re-ablement’ contract of between 1000-1600 hours per week to start from 1st November 2010 and separate contractors to provide the usual home care ongoing support.

Housing 21 won the ‘Re-ablement’ contract which was in part a tribute to the professionalism and integrity of the many ex-Barnet staff who worked so hard with the initial project. However there is now a serious deficit of a possible 2 thirds [3000+ down to 1000+] in the hours that Barnet Council has commissioned from Hsg 21 with obvious implications for nearly 200 members of staff. They face the uncertain future of possibly being again TUPE’d to one of the 11 new contractors, or being interviewed/selected for a re-ablement’ post with Hsg 21 or being made redundant. This effects the actual carers and also the office staff who support all the programming

Staff consultations start on Monday 6th Sept and Barnet UNISON will do everything possible to support members through this difficult and anxious time.

 

  

£6 Million of public money!

Sad person that I am, I was trawling through the Cabinet Resources Committee papers. Agenda Item 10 Monitoring 2010/11 Report.

The relevant section:

4.3 The arbitrator in the Catalyst dispute has found partially in favour in Catalyst. The cost to the Council to March 2010 has not been finally determined, but will be up to £6m. The cost will be funded from the risk reserve (currently £17.7m), leaving a reduced balance to manage other risks, including Icelandic bank deposits.

I am very angry. This is public money that will not benefit Barnet residents. Unfortunately I have a long memory and fought hard with UNISON members to oppose this back in 1999.

We produced reports with Professor Dexter Whitfield, opposing the rush to privatise this service, but councillors were being scared into making a rushed and poorly thought out decision.

Unfortunately despite our best efforts and genuine commitment to work with our employer, battle lines were drawn, and none of our recommendations were acknowledged.

The above Deficit Claim by Catalyst Housing (the Partner with Fremantle Trust) ends a long and very bitter four years which has seen the former council workers TUPED to Fremantle Trust have their terms and conditions ripped apart.

The sad fact is public money has been handed over and for what gain?

In the space of a couple of weeks we have seen former council services contracted out in the newspaper headlines Barnet Homes with Edward Meakins, the news of the potential imminent collapse of Connaught the contractor providing council house repairs services and today Catalyst Housing Association .

This is why the Trade Unions are campaigning against the Future Shape programme in its current state.

Very soon I will receive a draft report with proposals to undermine our redundancy scheme and no doubt be informed sometime this year about some pretty savage cuts to public services and redundancy for our members.

How we could do with that £6 million now, and don’t get me started about Icelandic Banks!

I am so angry.

 

 

Barnet Council – Use of Consultants

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said:

 “Greater openness in spending is the best way to root out waste, spot duplication and increase value for money. That is why I have been asking councils to ‘show me the money’ so local taxpayers can see where their hard earned cash is going.”

 

Barnet has already published their details for April to June 2010.

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/expenditure_by_supplier_apr-jun_2010.xls

 

I am glad this data has been published because I have been asking, unsuccessfully, for the data on consultancy spend for several years. Whilst no organisation as large as the council can ever be fully staffed it is important there are effective controls on staffing costs.

 

There are a number of questions I will be asking:  

  • If we need all the consultants listed has a full business case has been produced?
  • How is the council capturing the skills and expertise of the consultant to transfer to Council staff.
  •  
  • What is the purpose and how will the work of the consultant will be performance managed?
  • Are we complying with HRMC guidelines for the employment of consultants?

 

Barnet UNISON members working for Connaught face uncertain future…

It has been a matter of public record that Connaught have been experiencing serious issues

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mears-revels-in-connaughts-woes-as-cuts-fuel-demand-2055319.html

The latest share price 13.84p

http://investing.thisismoney.co.uk/companyresearch/11390/Connaught/company_research.html

Barnet UNISON members working for Connaught were told they had been served notice by barnet Homes. Our members who less than 5 years ago were working for barnet council ensure repairs and maintenance of the council housing stock. They have been transferred two times and face a third transfer in less than 6 years!

Barnet Homes have served notice on Connaught that they intend to terminate their contract with them in February 2011. This six month notice period is in accordance with terms laid out in the original contract.

The two questions

·         Who will provide the service in future for council tenants?

·         What will happen to the staff?

Barnet Homes are going out to procurement for all of their future maintenance suppliers, so an organisation or organisations are likely to be appointed in due course.

Barnet UNISON have already asked that the staff are TUPED back to Barnet Homes, whilst I understand that will be one of the options looked at it is the Option we want to happen.

We are therefore asking Barnet Homes staff to sign our petition to bring this workforce back to Barnet Homes.

Please contact UNISON Convenor Anne Denison for a copy of the form or you can download the form online here.

 

 

 

Barnet Anti Academies Alliance launched 15 July 2010

Last Thursday I attended the launch of the Barnet Anti Academies Alliance. Guest speaker Alisdair Smith (from Anti-Academy Alliance) spoke passionately about the need to organise in those schools looking to become Academies next term.

It was clear from the discussion in the meeting that staff have not been consulted. It was agreed that we need to build a campaign to have an open and transparent debate before any decisions are made.

Staff, parents, governors all need to take part in the debate.

Barnet Council are promoting Academies and Free schools without any reference to any evidence and without an educational impact assessment having been published.

Two Community Schools East Barnet and Ravenscroft School are looking to become Academies.

I attended a Joint Trade Union meeting at Ravenscroft with the Head and later the staff. It was clear from the questions being asked by staff that they had not understood the implications fo becoming an Academy.

There are still many  unanswered questions.

We asked the Head to recommend that no decisions are made until the new term begins. However the Head was clear that it will be the Governors decision on Thursday 22 July.

One of the Governors is Cabinet member Cllr Brian Coleman. The Council passed a motion supporting the move to Academies.

If Ravenscroft decides to go ahead and become an Academy whilst the staff are away on leave the Trade Unions may have to look at declare a dispute.

No school should make a decision of this importance without having the facts before them. Even the financial gains must be clear before the School make sthe decision. Once a school becomes aan Academy there is not going back that is in the Bill.

“Would you buy a house, car without having the details in black and white?”

Barnet Council beware of ………..Cumbria Council end of Capita Contract

Cumbria Council end of Capita Contract

A big strategic partnership with Capita which was charged with delivering highways, property, finance and pension administration services.

The council sent out the following message: Corporate Message 19 October 2009 – Planning for the end of Capita’s contract with the county council.

The Council’s Cabinet met last week to consider how services are to be delivered when the existing contract with Capita comes to an end on 31 January 2011.

1. Following a several month period of options appraisal into the way council services could be delivered in the future, Cabinet recommended the following:

2. To generally strengthen the council’s client-side capacity across the five service areas currently provided by Capita, by 31 January 2011.

3. To develop options for a public/public service or re-tender for both Occupational Health Services and Pensions Administration, beginning 1 February 2011.

4. To develop plans for a mixture of in-house capacity and use of Framework Contracts for Property Services, beginning 1 February 2011.

5. To plan and develop an integrated Highways, Economic Development and Streetscene Service (potentially with the District Councils), beginning 1 April 2012. From 1 February 2011, this will mean the transfer of some Capita staff to the county council, and initially for a short-term (from 1 February 2011 until 31 March 2012), transfer of some Capita staff to Amey.

6. To explore wider shared services opportunities across the five service areas by 31 January 2011.

7. To effectively manage the transition process between now and 31 January 2011.

 

 

 

 

Barnet Council ‘unhelpful and irrelevant’

On Monday 12 July Barnet UNISON attended an Extra-ordinary meeting of the Corporate JNCC and it really was an extra-ordinary meeting!

The words ‘unhelpful and irrelevant’ were used by a senior officer of the council in our two and half hour meeting with councillors. I know staff are angry, upset about in-house being disregarded. The explanation given at the meeting went something like this:

The Future Shape Cabinet report which was passed on 21 October 2009 is now policy. The policy is that the Council has taken a strategic decision to become a commissioner rather than a provider of services. In which case any talk of in-house bids/options is ‘unhelpful and irrelevant.’

For almost an hour we spent discussing how Adult Social Care decided that there would not be an in-house option. There was confusion because the Acting Director of Adults said no decision had been made. However the Trade Unions referred to a Briefing sent to all staff which said the following:

“Care and Health Solutions recommended that the option to transfer these services to a Local Authority Trading Company with Barnet Homes as a sister company, should be explored in detail at the next stage to develop a final business case.”

I think that is pretty clear to our members that a decision has been made, there will be no in-house option.

The Trade Unions agreed to send the Staff Briefing to councillors and the 46 questions we asked about the Options Appraisal process for Adult Future Shape project.

Councillors did ask if staff in Adults wanted an in-house bid. The Trade Unions said that they did; but the response from management side was there had been no feedback from managers in the setting that staff wanted an in-house bid. I made a note of that comment and will be asking our local reps to carry out a ballot of members views.

We made it very clear to that the adult project had been conducted in secrecy and information withheld despite 46 questions raised by the trade unions.

We made the point that we had seen no economic evidence or business case as to why in-house options are not being considered for Adults, Support Services, Regulatory Services, Transport and any future projects.

We said it was our view that Future Shape programme in its current format was a mass privatisation programme.

I will now report back on the how they responded to our recommendations:

a) In-House Options and bids i.e. resources are made available to enable staff, trade unions and senior managers to be involved from the outset and understand the rules.

RESPONSE: There will be no in-house bids.

b) The Council invites the Newcastle Chief Executive to send the Director responsible for developing an in-house bid alongside a tender bid from BT for back office services to come and address a meeting of the top 100 managers and to speak at a meeting of Council staff.

RESPONSE: They have agreed that our Chief Executive will invite Newcastle to come down to speak to the top 100 managers, a staff meeting and a meeting with councillors as to how they run in-house bids.

c) A guarantee that TUPE will last for the length of contract.

RESPONSE: The promised to respond by September.

d) TUPE Plus is adopted by the Council.

RESPONSE: They promised to respond by September.

e) Our Pensions questions are answered before any decisions to outsource are made.

RESPONSE: This is linked to TUPE Plus response.

 f) Public Public Partnerships with other local authorities and public bodies are included in the Options Appraisals i.e. cross borough solutions to the funding crisis.

RESPONSE: They said they were committed to exploring these options in the Options Appraisal process. I pointed out this Option has not been looked at in the Options Appraisals I have seen to date.

g) One Barnet Option is included in Options Appraisal for Support Services Project i.e. we have seen no evidence that any of our Barnet Public Sector Partners are giving any commitment to join to form a Public Public Partnership model for Support Services delivery.

RESPONSE: They agreed this Option must be included in the Options Appraisal process. I pointed out it has not been included in the projects I have seen so far.

Joint Trade Unions call emergency meeting with Barnet Council over mass privatisation plans

Tonight the Joint Trade Unions are meeting with our Employers (councillors) because of the very real concern that the Future Shape programme appears to be embarking on the mass privatisation of all of the councils services.

Our full report can be found here

We are asking for the following:

a)        In-House Options and bids i.e. resources are made available to enable staff, trade unions and senior managers to be involved from the outset and understand the rules.

b)        The Council invites the Newcastle Chief Executive to send the Director responsible for developing an in-house bid alongside a tender bid from BT for back office services to come and address a meeting of the top 100 managers and to speak at a meeting of Council staff.

c)         A guarantee that TUPE will last for the length of contract.

d)        TUPE Plus is adopted by the Council.

e)        Our Pensions questions are answered before any decisions to outsource are made.

f)         Public Public Partnerships with other local authorities and public bodies are included in the Options Appraisals i.e. cross borough solutions to the funding crisis.

g)             One Barnet Option is included in Options Appraisal for Support Services Project i.e. we have seen no evidence that any of our Barnet Public Sector Partners are giving any commitment to join to form a Public Public Partnership model for Support Services delivery.

Barnet Council Support Services & Adult Social Care staff ‘shock World Cup exit’

For the last two years the Trade Unions have been seeking to ensure that the Future Shape programme is:

1.     The process is open and transparent

2.     There is genuine trade union and staff engagement in delivering an in-house option for the Options Appraisal.

On Wednesday 30 June I attended the first of two ‘Away Days’ being provided for staff delivering services such as Finance, Legal Services, Customers Services, Libraries, Audit, IS, Procurement, Property Services, HR, Pay Roll, Pensions, Revs & Bens. 

The purpose of the meeting was to launch the creation of the New Support Services Future Shape project and to explain the reasons behind it.  The major staffing revelation was that the Council has decided not to include the Option of an in-house bid in the Options Appraisal process. Staff were told that they would be looking to the services of one of the big top 100 FTSE companies e.g. IBM, SERCO, MOUCHEL, CAPITA

Whilst this should not have come as such a shock to staff, hearing officially that the Council would not be giving them the opportunity to compete clearly upset some staff.

More important is on what basis an in-house bid has been ruled out of the Options Appraisals. No data has been produced or provided to the Trade Unions which could demonstrate the rationale for this decision. Last year I sought a meeting with the previous Leader of the Council because of fears that in spite of the Future Shape jargon, what we was seeing was old style privatisation with a 21st century makeover!

The meeting was useful and he provided the following quote:

“Once we get to look at the ‘who’ it may be that we partner with other organisations to provide a service in a different way.  Equally, it may be that we continue to provide a service because we are the only organisation that can achieve sufficiently high quality at sufficiently low cost.  This is an interpretation the Council does what only the Council can do. Clearly we have many excellent services and we would not embark on unnecessary disruption, but we would be in favour of change if we were confident it would bring significant improvements in quality and value for money”.

which we published last year for the full article click here

The question which remains unanswered for the 700 staff is

“How can the Council be ‘confident’ they can bring in a private sector partner to deliver better value and service improvements if they do not put up an in-house option in the Option Appraisal process?”

This would be a massive contract for the private sector and we along with other Councils have had our fingers burnt by the private sector. If we really have learnt lessons then “why are we ‘shunning’ in-house bids?”

Options Appraisal or Group Stage explained

One of the regular criticisms of Future Shape has been the jargon used. To try and help members understand the process I am using the analogy of World Cup group stage qualification process.

Service Delivery Options

Points scored

In-house team

 

Management Buy Out (MBO)

 

Barnet Homes

 

Local Authority Trading Company (LATC)

 

Joint Venture

 

Private Sector sale

 

Closure of Service

 

 Please note: We have asked the Council, but have had no response as to how many Options go through to the next stage where a Full Business case will be produced (Followers of the real World Cup will know that only the top two go through to the next stage).

MEMBER ALERT: If you do not progress to the next stage you are out. If the in-house option is discarded at this stage staff will be facing the prospect of being transferred out of the Council.

To help understand the process and implications it is often best to see a live example.

Below is a table showing the scores of an

Options Appraisal for the Future Shape Adult Social Care Provision.

Options

Strategic Fit for Transforming Social Care

Deliverability

Acceptability

VFM

Totals

Customer

Council

Staff

Transfer to Barnet Homes

5

5

4

4

3

4

25

LATC

4

4

3

4

3

3

21

Social Enterprise (start-up)

4

3

2

3

3

3

18

Remain In-House

2

3

4

2

3

1

19 15*

Tender/Trade Sale

4

2

2

3

1

2

14

Closure of Service

1

1

1

 

1

1

1

6

* Please note the table sent to the Trade Unions (see above) scored the in-house option 19 but as you can see the total is 15.

The Trade Unions have registered a ‘failure  to agree’ over the Options Appraisal process to council officers and have requested a Corporate Joint Negotiation Consultation Committee with councillors in order we can formally discuss our concerns. The example above has been shrouded in secrecy from the outset once the decision to exclude the Trade Unions was made. We have attempted to engage in the process. We have submitted 46 questions to the Adult Social Care Future Shape Project team and to date we have not had a response.

1 60 61 62 63 64 125