The One Barnet Programme (OBP) talks about the Council having ‘a different relationship with the citizen’, staff will have heard at One Barnet briefings that the OBP ‘puts the citizen at the heart of everything the council does’
In light of the above Barnet UNISON decided to commission the view of an ordinary citizen on One Barnet Programme.
You can view his response here
Friday 22 July at 12.30pm…. Friday 22 July at 12.30pm!
At a recent Pension branch briefing members thought it would be a good idea if UNISON members across the branch which includes a number of different employers agreed to watch and listen to this short video (3 mins 57 secs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvBeAwpVZF4
The video includes an interview with the Cabinet Officer Minister Francis Maude.
We are asking our members to start playing the BIG CON video on their PC’s or mobile phones at the same time whether it at work (in their lunch break) or at home.
Please watch the video on Friday 22 July at 12.30pm
We have a provided a transcript of the BBC interview which you can download here.
For those unable to view the BIGCON video we can make a short DVD in order you can view. Contact the branch on 0208 359 2088 or email
Dear Councillors
Please find enclosed Interim Analysis of Library Strategic Review.
Click here
Once the report going to Cabinet at the end of this month is made publicly available we will carry out a consultation with our members and submit our final response to Cabinet.
Best wishes
John Burgess
Branch Secretary.
Barnet UNISON
Standing up for staff and public services
Gloucestershire Council in the Dock
Residents of Gloucestershire have given Library Campaigners across the country a boost by obtaining a High Court injunction against the closure of their libraries. This also reminds local authorities that they have a statutory duty to provide a full and comprehensive library service under The Museum and Libraries Act 1964. This action represents the first time the Act has been tested in court and round one has clearly gone to the residents. As Public Interest Lawyers solicitor Daniel Carey, acting on behalf of Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries notes; “the High Court has today ensured that these cuts will receive the full scrutiny of the law. The council has very clear statutory duties to provide libraries and these plans breach them.”
Read further reports here:
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/high-court-halts-gloucestershire-library-closures.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-13817172
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/106068
Local residents in Barnet have been no less vociferous in campaigning to keep their libraries open.
Friern Barnet residents have mounted well supported read-ins at their threatened library and are investigating the possibility of obtaining village green status for the green space next to it. More than 2,000 people signed the petition which has now been presented to the council.
Future planned protests are a ‘Walk to the Library’ week for local children from Monday 11th – Friday 15th July. The campaigners would like as many local schools to participate as possible so if your children or their school want to join-in contact them at savefriernbarnetlibrary@gmail.com . The ‘Walk to the Library’ week will reach a stunning finale with a party for the library on Saturday 16th July from 2-4pm. Check out https://sites.google.com/site/savefriernbarnetlibrary/updates for up-to-date information.
Hampstead Garden Suburb residents have been doing their homework and reckon the council have got their figures wrong in their justification to close the local library. Campaigners say, “While it is claimed that our Suburb library is the second costliest to run, one of the reasons cited being that the premises are the only ones in the borough which are leased from a private landlord, our investigations have shown that the rent for 2010/11 is only £ 10,532 p.a., just 7.6% of its total costs. What however is very disturbing is the fact that over £ 57,000 or 41% of the total overheads is being charged to us by way of ” central ” Barnet library charges. To determine what savings are indeed possible , without prejudicing the quality of the service, surely any cost projections must be calculated on a ” like with like ” basis ? The full article can be viewed at http://www.hgs.org.uk/newspages/20110506savehgslibrary.html and in the local press here http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/9059899.Library_cost_figures_queried_by_campaigners/
North Finchley residents are also concerned about the future of their library and have managed to obtain 790 signatures on a petition which, as reported by Mrs Angry, Barnet Councillors managed to ignore by use of the new format for Residents Forums. See http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/06/telling-it-like-it-is-residents-forum.html for all the shameful details.
Library campaigners of Barnet – Don’t hide your light under a bushel. If you are organising a protest, a petition, a Read-in, a Love-in or anything designed to support your library we want to help spread the word. Send the details to Barnet UNISON on contactus@barnetunison.org.uk or Barnet Alliance for Public Services on barnetalliance4publicservices@gmail.com
Dear Councillors
Please find Barnet UNISON response to the New Support and Customer Services Organisation Business Case going to Cabinet Resources Committee on Wednesday 29 June
For those of you who prefer to read hard copies I have arranged for the report to be posted to you.
In all my time as Branch Secretary of Barnet UNISON I have endeavoured to seek engagement with councillors and officers in a non partisan manner it is unfortunate that our reports (and we have submitted over 30 such reports) are still being perceived as simply part of anti-outsourcing agenda, Whilst I can understand that view, I think for those who have read our reports they will find they are quite balanced and reflect the views of our growing membership.
It is now three years since the council embarked on the Future Shape programme and in that time it has changed direction a number of times; at least that is my view. In that time I have been assured by councillors and senior officers that mistakes of the past both local and national in relation to procurement and contract monitoring will not be repeated I have to report that they have become empty words.
It was not amusing or comfortable sitting in the Audit Committee two weeks ago and all the subsequent publicity that has brought to the Council. But I can only reflect that if the Council had been serious in its intentions to engage with UNISON two years ago when we submitted a 100 page draft corporate procurement policy you may never have heard the words ‘Metpro’.
In the hope that perhaps you may understand the level of concern we have over the One Barnet projects I would like to bring you attention to the now infamous Southwest One strategic partnership in Somerset which has been beset by controversy since the project was signed off by the then Lib Dem council. Since the contract was signed off there has been a change and it now a Conservative administration. The contract continue to be subject to criticism that it has not delivered anywhere near the savings first predicted; it is my understanding they have spent £58 million to make £6 million in savings. Following a Freedom of Information inquiry the Council decided to go public about the review they have carried out.
I would ask you to view this BBC southwest interview with the Ken Maddock Leader Somerset County Council it is only 2 mins long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKzSHxz14YI
It is clear to anyone watching this short clip that he is uncomfortable with the contract and is aware that it will cost an ‘awful lot of money to get out of the contract with IBM’. The idea that council has the expertise and skills to take on the big law firms like IBM, Capita SERCO and the rest is a very high risk strategy.
I know Somerset very well and have been following this story for several years. They had consultants that sold the savings concept, but where are they now?
As previously, please do not hesitate to contact me if you want to discuss aspects of our report.
To view report click here
Best wishes
John Burgess
Branch Secretary.
Standing up for staff and public services
Not for onward transmission in whole or part without permission
The Council takes a narrow view of the function of the Business Case “…as the purpose of the business case is to identify the case to carry out procurement process, the risks associated with this process are highlighted” (Response to Trade Union comments, 31 May 2011). But the role of a Business Case is not simply justify commencement of procurement, it is also to establish a case for outsourcing the service. This is an important distinction. There is no in-house bid, so the Council has to look beyond a procurement process to determine whether the development of the options appraisal actually stacks up in the five ways described above.
The Council is not consistent because two of the six risks identified in the Business Case refer to the risk of central government changing savings targets or decreasing funding “…during the life of the contract” (page 36).
The Council is attempting to privatise risks by omitting from the business case. The risks summarised below are equally important as the six risks identified in the Business Case. If key risks are not disclosed and debated now, then the next stage will be the award of a contract when the risk register will be classified as ‘commercially confidential’. The final Business case may ultimately be disclosed through a Freedom of Information request, but by then the contract will have been signed and will be operational. These omissions would have been identified if the Council had adopted best practice in holding Gateway Reviews at important stages of the options appraisal and procurement process.
Key risks omitted by the Council
The following key procurement risks have omitted from the Business Case:
The Business Case identifies only one transition risk, others include :
The Business Case identifies only two key operational risks but there are more key risks that should be included:
The Business Case fails to identify contract management risks such as:
Financial Risks
Democratic Governance Risk
Employment Risk
Barnet UNISON Press Release:
26 June May 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
£.75 Billion pound contract to be signed off
“The CSO-NSO Business Case is another example of Barnet Council’s slap dash approach to procurement – it denies financial and operational risks, over-states savings and makes little effort to take account of service needs and the well being of staff.” (Dexter Whitfield )
On Wednesday 29 June Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee (CRC) will sign off a contract worth up to £750 million to the successful private sector company winning the contract, with the option of an extension of a further 5 years to a 10 year contact it could be worth over £1 billion.
Barnet UNISON commissioned Dexter Whitfield to produce a critique of the business case going to the CRC. You can read the full report here.
Our report found:
M Up to 253 staff could lose their jobs before, or shortly after, the CSO-NSO contract commences.
M Key procurement risks have been omitted such as :
Judicial Review if unequal treatment
M Key transition risks omitted such as:
Loss of critical skills before or at transfer
M Key operational risks omitted such as:
High level service user complaints
M Key contract management risks omitted such as:
Effectiveness of performance assessment regime
M Key Financial Risks omitted such as
Hidden costs emerge
M Key Democratic Governance Risks omitted such as:
Accountability & reporting failure
M Key Employment Risks omitted such as:
Pensions
To view full list of key risks click here
This contract is one of many contracts the Council has already put out to tender in the last five months with more contracts planned to go out later in the year. Already the combined total costs of contracts stands at more than £1 billion of public money.
Barnet ‘easycouncil’ has been making headlines for a number of ‘cock ups’ in procurement and failings in contract monitoring. The latest of which was the official audit report on MetPro the bust security company employed by Barnet Council. The report made shocking reading especially for a council aspiring to outsource all of its services to the private sector.
Here are just some of the key findings of the audit report are as follows:
M There was no procurement exercise in line with Barnet’s Contract Procedure Rules (CPR) and there was no written contract with the council
M There was payment of some invoices with no VAT number quoted & some invoices were from companies had different names – MetPro Group and MetPro Emergency Response. Internal Audit found inappropriate changes to MetPro’s bank accounts
M MetPro was not registered with the Contractors Health and Safety Assessment Scheme, thus rendering the council vulnerable to prosecution or civil claims
Barnet UNISON is recommending the following:
1. The Business Case has failed to make a strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management case for commencing the procurement process and should be rejected by Cabinet Resources Committee.
For further details of all our recommendations click here
“It is now three years since the Future Shape/Easycouncil/One Barnet programme started. In that time I have dealt with two chief executives, three council leaders and hundreds of consultants. Whilst the consultants pedal outrageous unsubstantiated claims to deliver £100 million in savings all I see is £millions going into the pockets consultants for a further three years, £9.2 according to the last council budget. In that time I have seen hardly any savings. What worries me is how ‘consultancy dependent we have become!” (John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary)
End.
Contact: John Burgess Barnet UNISON on 07738389569 or email: john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk
1. Analysis of Business Case New Support & Customer Services Project
London Borough of Barnet (Barnet UNISON) to view full report click here
2. Recent useful Links for Dexter Whitfield
M £2bn secret profits on PFI gravy train: Public-sector projects are massive money spinner
M £2bn profit for companies selling debt on public projects
M PFI: transferring billions from UK taxpayers to private financiers
M HM Treasury ‘in dark’ over ‘excessive’ PFI profits
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/business-13712275
M Massive PFI profits ”are going offshore”
Massive PFI profits ”are going offshore” – Public Service
M Private Sector taking full control of hospitals
http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/RevPDFS/BarnetPPP.pdf
M Treasury lets PFI firms’ profits run wild
http://www.dailyfinance.co.uk/2011/06/14/treasury-lets-pfi-firms-profits-run-wild/
M Transformation and Public Sector Reform http://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/publications/public-bodies/transformation-and-public-service-reform/
Recommendations
1. The Business Case has failed to make a strategic, economic, commercial, financial
and management case for commencing the procurement process and should be
rejected by Cabinet Resources Committee.
2. Given the impending changes in the organisation and delivery of local government,
NHS and benefit services, the Council should avoid being locked into a long-term
contract. It should commit to engage with staff and trade unions to undertake
transformation in-house drawing on external support on an as-and-when basis (a
practice adopted by Kent County Council and Newcastle City Council in drawing on
external consultancy to support in-house transformation).
3. If the Council proceeds with current plans then it is essential that it:
“As the London Borough of Barnet Council recently discovered…when a group of dogged local “citizen” bloggers managed to unearth evidence – through FOI requests and Companies House searches – of Barnet Council’s rather dodgy “relationship” with a security firm called MetPro (now out of business). Last week the findings of an internal audit were announced: including the troubling revelation that the council had spent £1.3 million with MetPro with no tendering exercise, no written contract or SLA, no formal authorisation, no proper invoicing… thus violating just about every CPR that Barnet had.
Cue some serious questions about Barnet’s finance, audit and procurement processes, and some serious embarrassment for the cabinet and senior officers of this so-called “flagship council: especially so given Barnet is one of the councils planning mass outsourcing of services imminently.”
After the demise of Suffolk’s “virtual” council (and the electoral scuppering of Bury’s “enabling” council) it is the turn of the daddy of all Conservative-led, outsourcing-driven council reforms programmes to come under the critical spotlight: Barnet’s Flagship “easy council” project.
A financial scandal has brought the controversial model (known formally as One Barnet) under renewed scrutiny. On Thursday night councillors discussed a report which detailed how the council spent £1.3m on the services of a security firm called MetPro, without carrying out basic financial or security checks or indeed putting the contract out to tender
Full article here
An internal audit report has highlighted concerns over procurement processes at the London Borough of Barnet. This raises questions about the council’s general outsourcing proposals and also the government’s wider privatisation plans
Not a good week for privatisation. First there’s the Health and Social Care Bill – ‘paused’, slightly modified and re-started following public outcry over threatened marketisation of the NHS. Next was the desperate debacle surrounding Southern Cross, filling the parts of the press and media that the bill didn’t occupy.
And just to add insult to privatisation injury, yesterday saw a debate within Barnet council’s Audit Committee about the payment of £1,361,000 to a private security contractor MetPro Rapid Response without a contract
Full article click here
