Search Results for: one barnet

Last Friday afternoon I sat down with UNISON members to listen to a presentation on the process to privatise the Parking service by April 2012.

Understandably staff were upset to be privatised, they asked a number of questions which made it clear that political ideology is replacing sound evidence based decision making.

 Last November UNISON submitted a report which you can view here we provided evidence to substantiate our report which you can view here

The report was presented to Cabinet and a number of senior officers and consultants and to date there has been no comment.

Our report claimed

“Actually, there is only one borough (Westminster) that has tried to privatise all their parking service using separate contractors to carry out their enforcement and administrative activities. Their enforcement is carried out by NSL who also dominate the market in enforcement across London albeit their performance is below average. Appendix A provides recent information on parking charge notice (parking ticket) issue over the twelve months to August 2010 compared to the year before. The best performances were from in-house teams (+8.6%). The three main private sector providers’ performances over the same period were comparatively very poor ie. Vinci Park (-3%), Mouchel (-5.7%) and NSL (-13.2%).”

“There is a legal risk associated with the requirements set down in the Traffic Management Act 2004 around decision-making on representations & appeals. LB Westminster is the only authority that has externalised both formal and informal back office activities and their performance at adjudication is the second worse in London with only 27% adjudications won last year (see Appendix C). This is a real risk to both income and the Council’s reputation.”

Scrutiny undermined

Earlier this year UNISON had been told Parking Service business case would be going to Cabinet Resources Committee (CRC) on 21 April.

The decision not to take the Parking Service business case to CRC unlike other One Barnet projects suppports Barnet UNISON’s view that there is no effective evidence based scrutiny of One Barnet projects.

Equalities issues

I have been contacted by a number of members asking if the decision “not to go to CRC discriminatory?”

The breakdown of the workforce is predominantly from the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) community. I will be asking for a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) with regards the decision not to go to committee along with the EIA for the business case.

The *OJEU contract

The OJEU notice was sent out 4 April 2011 the contract has been valued between £15- 25 million for a 5 year contract (plus 2 year).

You can view the OJEU notice here

The only justification for privatisation is the private sector will generate money to the council

In our report we stated:

“The surplus within the Special Parking Account (SPA) was actually just under £6m per annum in 2008/09 (Para 4.6) which shows that an in-house team can provide a financially efficient and beneficial service.”

In my discussions with staff, there is one reoccurring theme. They are angry because they believe the service was allowed to fail in order for the service to be privatised.

 If you follow the current One Barnet thinking, the Council are privatising Parking (a service which used to high performing and generated far greater income) because it no longer provides enough income. They claim the Private sector will be able to generate the required savings the in-house previously generated!  So we are handing over money to a Private sector partner which otherwise could be spent for benefit Barnet residents and not the shareholders of the private sector!

We now await the business case for Parking Service.

* Official Journal of European Union

The following is a copy of an open email to Cllr Cohen seeking support for our call for an independent public inquiry into what happened in the Catalyst Housing Group homes in Barnet.

There is a petition which I hope you could sign and pass onto your friends and family to sign.

To sign the petition click here

Dear Cllr Cohen

I am currently up north sorting out the quality of care for my mother in a care home, you may not know that I began my career in social care in Barnet working for what was called them ‘Jewish Welfare Board’ later to become Jewish Care.

I have been contacted following the headline in the Barnet Press which reads ‘Bacteria Scare in Care Homes’

I have read the council’s Press release on this matter and I am heartened to hear you quoted in the Hendon Times as saying

“We take any breach of health and safety regulations very seriously and the council will continue to sample the water systems at all five care homes run by Catalyst and will continue to oversee their treatment processes.”

And later in the Hendon Times saying

“Councillor Melvin Cohen, cabinet member for governance and civic affairs, said: “The tragic consequences of this case highlight just how crucial health and safety at work really is.

“I hope the fines imposed by the court service send out a strong message to employers about the paramount importance of ensuring the safety of those who work for them.”

It is clear there has been a significant breach in Health & Safety and it by good fortune, not good contract monitoring, that to date, there have been no reports of any service users contracting the legionella bacteria. I assume you have already asked that medical records for residents/services users have been checked for any signs of legionella bacteria?

I am not sure if you were made aware of a number of concerns I first raised on 16 February including my request for a public inquiry in order we could learn from the serious mistakes made in these Care Homes.

I had no response until I was contacted by the press and Iearnt that there were now 3 homes (not 2 as I was previously tod a month earlier) infected and that an improvement notice has been sent to Catalyst Housing Group.

On 17^th March I sent the following email to interim Head of Environment Health

Dear

Our UNISON regional organiser Laura Butterfield is away on leave and I as Branch Secretary I have been asked on behalf of our members working in the Fremantle for information of any action your service is taking with regards the Legionella outbreak in a number of Fremantle Care Homes. Laura has written to Fremantle on two occasions and has yet to receive a reply.

It is my understanding from reading the HSE document “What to expect when a health and safety inspector calls

A brief guide for businesses, employees and their representatives”

Which states

“finding a breach of health and safety law, the inspector will decide what action to take. The action will depend on the nature of the breach, and will be based on the principles set out in the Health and Safety Commission’s (HSC) Enforcement Policy Statement. The inspector should provide employees or their representatives with information about any action taken, or which is necessary for the purpose of keeping them informed about matters affecting their health, safety and welfare.”

 It goes on to say

“An inspector will meet or speak to employees or their representatives during a visit, wherever possible, unless this is clearly inappropriate because of the purpose of the visit. When they meet, employees or their representatives should always be given the opportunity to speak privately to the inspector, if they so wish. 

The inspector will provide employees or their representatives with certain information where necessary for the purpose of keeping them informed about matters affecting their health, safety and welfare. This information relates to the workplace or activity taking place there, and action which the inspector has taken or proposes to take. The type of information that an inspector will provide includes: 

·         matters which an inspector considers to be of serious concern;

·         details of any enforcement action taken by the inspector; and

·         an intention to prosecute the business (but not before the dutyholder is informed).

Depending on the circumstances, the inspector may provide this information orally or in writing.”

 I have a number of questions

 1. Can you confirm whether any resident/service user/member of the public has contracted Legionella?

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

·         Is it Barnet Council

·         Is it Catalyst Housing?

·         Is it Fremantle

·         Is another organisation?

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

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. 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?

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

11. Can you confirm that you have issued an improvement notice and if so please provide me with a copy of the notice?

I have subsequently added another question

12.  ‘Have relatives of residents and day care users been informed and kept up to date on developments?’

Improvement Notice

I note the improvement notice requests

“You should identify who in your organisation and who in your contractors’ organisations needs to be notified about unsatisfactory results. These individuals need to be clear about the required course of action to be taken.

 Appropriate communications arrangements need to be in place.”

I hope you have already expressed concern to learn that this still needs to be done 6 weeks after the outbreak first went public.

What is clear is that there is a problem and the problem is transparency; which makes our request for an independent public inquiry in the public interest and urgent.

I have been contacted by a number of journalists working both inside and outside Barnet all investigating the real story.

Sooner or later more information is going to come to light about just how all of this happened I think it is Barnet Council’s interest to be at the forefront in wanting a independent public inquiry.

I have a duty to safeguard our member’s health & safety for our members working in those care homes and I want greater transparency and would welcome a joint call from Barnet Council to ensure there is a public inquiry.

One Barnet

Forgive my cynicism that my request for an independent public inquiry  will be met with stony silence, which is why I need to add a further reason for an inquiry.

The One Barnet programme is a mass privatisation programme, the success of which would be reliant on ability of the council to successfully procure and contract & monitor private sector organisations. The added risk is that these organisations are not subject to Freedom if Information (FOI) requests and often hide behind commercial confidentiality.

I am sure you perhaps have already asked this questions but

“What is the councils responsibility with regards health & safety of Barnet residents and members of the public when services are privatised?

Sub contractor failure?

I have been contacted by someone who claims they worked in one of the Fremantle Care Homes. They allege there was an organisation called Tarn Pure who used to carry out checks for Legionella. I have checked and Tarn Pure appear to be a highly professional and reputable company who specialise in water treatment.

I want to bring this comment in the ‘improvement notice’ issued to Catalyst Housing

“Due to the complexity of your arrangements at these care homes it is imperative that you identify clear lines of responsibilities and reporting arrangements for each of these parties.”

It appears that the above comment implies a lack of transparency which is impeding the ability to establish who is accountable and that safe systems are in place and lessons learnt.

I have no idea as to whether Tarn Pure were commissioned by Catalyst and if so whether they responsible for what has happened in these homes. What is clear is that there needs to be an independent public inquiry.

I would welcome opportunity to discuss any comments you have on the matters I have raised in this open letter to you.

I would like to have your assurance that these questions will be answered and made publicly available?

I look forward to hearing back from you shortly.

Best wishes

John  Burgess

Branch Secretary

Barnet UNISON

Barnet UNISON & Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) have organised a Public Meeting and have invited Professor Dexter Whitfield as the Guest Speaker.

 

The meeting takes place on Tuesday 15^th March at 7pm in the Greek Cypriot Community Centre, 2 Britannia Road, London N12 9RU.

 

Barnet Council last week passed a Budget making £54 million in cuts/savings which included cuts to frontline services and increases in fees and charges to Barnet residents.

 

Barnet Council is embarking on policy called One Barnet Programme formerly known as Future Shape and more widely referred to as ‘easycouncil’. This programme has already begun, 24 out of 25 council services have already been told they are to be privatised. Up to £4 million has been spent on consultants and other staff resources in the last three years with no discernable savings for Barnet residents. A further £9.2 million has been put aside for consultants to help deliver this mass privatisation programme.

 

Dexter has been commissioned by the Council Trade Unions to produce a series of critiques and proposals on the Councils Future Shape Programme (now rebranded One Barnet) You can view all his analysis/reports on the following link here

 

Dexter will be addressing in his speech the following:

• Costs and consequences of Barnet council policies.
• Community needs decided by multinational companies.
• The effect on jobs, terms and conditions.
• The erosion of democracy and transparency.
• Implications of the governments White Paper on public sector reform

This will be followed by a Q& A session

Dave Prentis, UNISON General Secretary addressed members at our AGM last week and said “the council that couldn’t cut more and couldn’t care less, the council that is in the vanguard of Tory ideology”.

 

More recently Professor Dexter Whitfield had an article on PFI published in the Guardian newspaper & in the Barnet Press

 

End.

 

Contact: John Burgess Barnet UNISON on 07738389569 or email: john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

 

Background

 

Dexter Whitfield is Director of European Services Strategy Unit (continuing the work of the Centre for Public Services founded in 1973) and is Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide.  He has carried out extensive research and policy analysis of regional/city economies and public sector provision, jobs and employment strategies, impact assessment and evaluation, marketisation and privatisation, modernisation and public management (www.european-services-strategy.org.uk).

 

He has undertaken commissioned work for a wide range of public sector organisations, local authorities and agencies and worked extensively with trade unions in the UK at branch, regional and national levels, and internationally. He has advised many tenants and community organisations on housing, planning and regeneration policies.

 

Dexter is the author of the following books:

• Global Auction of Public Assets: Public sector alternatives to the infrastructure market & Public Private Partnerships (2010);
• New Labour’s Attack on Public Services: Modernisation by Marketisation (2006),
• Public Services or Corporate Welfare: The Future of the Nation State in the Global Economy (2001),
• The Welfare State: Privatisation, Deregulation & Commercialisation (1992)
• Making it Public: Evidence and Action against Privatisation (1983).

He was one of the founding members of Community Action Magazine (1972-1995) and Public Service Action (1983-1998). He has published many articles in journals and delivered papers and advised public bodies and trade unions in Europe, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Critics of the Future Shape/EasyCouncil/One Barnet programme have gone on the record that despite all the rhetoric about new and innovative approaches to service delivery the Council are simply embarking on mass privatisation. Unlike the failed privatisation projects (also known as Compulsory Competitive Tendering CCT) this time they are attempting to privatise the whole council.

“Is this an exaggeration?”

This week almost 800 staff working in a number of council services were told that their days working for the Council were numbered.

I attended 7 staff briefings earlier this week and listened to claims  that the Option Appraisal was an objective & evidence based process!

Furthermore staff were told that the decision was not predetermined, however I can report that staff do not believe that and I think I can say with confidence that they know this is a political decision.

It is becoming increasingly clear that we are facing the return of the mad dogma known as “Private Good Public Bad!”

In the briefings staff asked about business cases and evidence behind the decision, but we all know that there is no evidence behind these projects.

The Trade Union reports produced by Professor Dexter Whitfield have exposed the lack of evidence and inconsistency in the above programme. Last year Grant Thornton the external auditor detailed a number of serious risks about this Programme.

So why do I make this claim. I thought I would look at the list of services that have already gone through the first stage of Future Shape.

Take a look at the number of council services all of which have gone through an Options Appraisals and all have produced a decision to privatise with the exception of Legal service (apparently there isn’t market for Legal Services, amazing really considering how often the Council goes to the private sector law firms for legal advice!).

Mass privatisation……?

24 out of 25 Council services have now been told they are to be privatised!  

1. Building Control & Structures
2. Planning (Development Management)
3. Strategic Planning & Housing Strategy
4. Regeneration
5. Land charges
6. Highways Transport & Regeneration
7. Highways strategy
8. Highways Network Management
9. Highways Traffic & Development
10. Environmental Health (Residential & Commercial)
11. Hendon Cemetery & Crematorium
12. Trading Standards & Licensing
13. Registration & Nationality
14. Parking Service
15. Coach Escorts
16. Passenger Travel
17. Customer Services
18. Adult Social Care
19. Estates
20. Facilities
21. Procurement
22. Human Resources
23. Information Services
24. Revenues & Benefits
25. * Legal Services

* to be retained in-house

 

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

Tuesday 21 September – Audit Committee report

Item 9 One Barnet: Review of Governance Arrangements

You can view the report online here

 

The First Recommendation reveals the Council

• Does not have a business case for the One Barnet Programme.
• Does not have any evidence of planned benefits or planned outcomes of the programme
• Does not have an estimated cost of the programme
• Does not have an overview of the overall timescales of the programme including key milestones
• Does not have a high level risk profile 

The Future Shape Programme is over two years old we spent over £2.5 million to consultants in the first two phases and now we are looking to invest more money for another bunch of consultants.

 

In these times of Austerity we must stop handing over public money to consultants who do not deliver. If Consultants are not prepared to forego a large part of their fee on the understanding that it will only be paid if their recommendations deliver value for money to the Council; then we shouldn’t employ them.

 

I am tired/frustrated reading reports from consultants waxing lyrical about different models of delivery with little or no evidence to substantiate their claims. Furthermore I know they will be long gone when the organisation finds out it has been sold a pup!

 

Who pays…..?

It is the tax payer. Public services are funded by taxes we all pay and that included public sector workers.

After all, in Barnet we are all familiar with local examples of privatisation successes failures: Icelandic Banks, Connaught, Catalyst, Aerodrome Road, Meals at Home, Cleaning……

 

More to follow….

How can the Future Shape Programme where the stakes are so high not have all the recommendations set out in the Audit report in place before any decisions are made about the future of council services?

Barnet Council’s Future Shape programme is currently examining options for the provision of a wide range of services. The Council is excluding in-house provision in principle and is constructing barriers to a genuine assessment of the potential of this option. Staff have raised a number of questions in meetings and presentations on the future of Council services. Some arise from statements made by senior officers in staff presentations and reports. They require a response and explanation.

1. Can in-house services innovate on the scale required by Future Shape?

The Council has failed to engage with staff and trade unions to explore their ideas and proposals for innovation and service improvement, despite being urged to do so (Barnet UNISON Briefing No 5, 2008). The council has spent £2.5m on Future Shape consultants but what has been achieved? These scarce resources would have been more effectively spent on developing and improving services with staff and trade unions. It could be started today. However, the Council continues to engage consultants claiming they are ‘independent’ and that Council staff do not have the required skills to carry out the work. This is not the case. None of the current projects – the Regulation bundle (planning, environmental health, trading standards), Adults, Hendon Crematoria and Cemetery, Transport, Support Services and Customer Services, develop the One Barnet concept. They simply adopt the outsource contract model. The opportunity to develop a more innovative approach will be lost.

 

To view the full report click here