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

From: John Burgess
Sent: 06 April 2011 16:00
To: ‘Cohen, Cllr Melvin Conservative’
Cc: Kennally, Kate; Joffe, Glynnis; Mason, Rick; l.Butterfield@unison.co.uk; Murray, Stewart; Palmer, Chris
Subject: RE: Barnet UNISON – Legionella outbreak – in Catalyst Care homes in Barnet
Importance: High

 

Hi Cllr

Thank you for response. I look forward to officers providing the responses to the questions that I have raised in this email.

I fully understand there will be those of the view  that the reputation of the council has been damaged as a result of what has happened in the former council care homes. Furthermore I would be surprised if the council had not already looked to see if there are any penalty clauses in the council which could be enforced. This is a high profile contract, it is public knowledge that the council is looking to re-negotiate the contract.

It is important therefore for an independent third party to review & identify system failures, clarify lines of responsibility in order to avert any further repetition of these events. This is why I do not share your view that there is no need for a public inquiry.

 

Best wishes

John

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

At lot of us have had to say farewell to colleagues as consequence of the budget cuts. Some are friends and colleagues, I have picked up that the mood around the work place is low and staff are fearful of what is to come.

I think next week it is really going to hit home when staff see empty chairs where their colleagues used to sit.

BUT what next?

I hope that the ‘more for less’ mantra does not start up again.  It has been apparent to me staff carry out an inordinate amount of overtime and in many cases it is unpaid. Often the reason is because staff place great store in being a public servant and the public sector ethos that goes with that.

In the coming weeks I will be arranging for UNISON meetings for members to provide feedback on their workplaces. E.g. How are they coping with the undoubted extra workload as a result of the loss of staff?

Keep an eye out for these meetings

Farewell Maggi

Maggi Myland has been a friend and union colleague for more than 14 years. Maggi is one of the casualties of the Budget cuts. Barnet UNISON along with other council services has taken a cut, in our case it works out at more than a 50%.

What can I say about Maggi? We are going to miss her terribly, but I think it is our members who will miss her even more. Her caseload is phenomenal and her empathy towards the members who are often in a terrible state of distress is unmatched by any other rep I have met.

The extra hours after work and at the weekend she has put in for members could never be reimbursed, but Maggi would never ask for it, because she belongs to a rare breed. Trade Unionism is in her blood. She is one of those unable to walk away from someone in distress.

Maggi is the worker you need on the team late Friday afternoon when everyone else is winding down and a crisis hits your office. Maggi just gets on with it, she is 100% member led.

Maggi has held a number of roles in her time with the branch Social Services Convenor, Health & Safety officer, Welfare Officer, and unofficially she has been the UNISON transport/taxi service.

We will be posting details of events for members to say farewell to Maggi. Look out for details soon as I am sure there are lots fo members who will want to wish her well.

Farewell to Return2Learn and Susan

It is a sad to report that we have had our support for Return2learn (R2L) has been cut as part of the Budget cuts.

The R2L programme was a fantastic programme which enabled hundreds of staff to have a second opportunity to improve their skills and gain confidence to take further training and other qualifications.

The agreement we made with the Council Leader 6 year ago was ground breaking. A lot of councils talked about doing this but in Barnet we did more than talking.

The programme was started by Carmen Bruno and for the last three years Susan Timthong has been running the R2L programme.

It was an hard act for Susan to follow but she managed it and more.

She is totally committed to learning opportunities and has worked tirelessly for staff to have access to learning.

I may be wrong, but I guess that training opportunities for Barnet staff are going to be harder to access, yet it is in times like this that learning new skills is even more important.

It is strange that in these difficult times that a service that provides FREE training for the Council has been unable to escape the axe!

Susan will still be looking to promote Life Long Learning in some capacity, we will hear from her in due course.

We will also looking to organise an event to mark the end of the R2L programme.

(above is Barnet resident)

I was proud to be able to take part in the first Barnet community march outside the borders of Barnet.

500 residents/trade unionists/from Barnet congregated outside the Savoy Hotel yesterday morning (site of Peasants Revolt 1381).

As we snaked through the capital, chants of “no to easy council no to easycouncil” provoked some bemused reactions. It was all good fun and the 500 all seemed to be inspired by marching with so many others. The banners and home made placards were fantastic as were some of the chanting.

It took us 5 and half hours to march from Embankment to  Hyde Park! I was exhausted when I reached Hyde Park (a note for me,we must find lighter banner poles for our banner).

It is disappointing to see the media focusing on the violence that took place last night. On the whole, it was a peaceful march,I never saw any violence, n fact it was almost a carnival atmosphere.

We will never know how many were there but it must have been close to a million. Feeder marches kept joining the main march, but even if we say it was as low as 500,000, the media by focussing on the behaviour of 0.04% let themselves down again.

The real story is the open attack on our public services and the resolve of communities everywhere to stand up to defend them.

Dear Councillors

Please find enclosed two reports which have been commissioned by Barnet UNISON in response to the 166 page business case tabled for Cabinet Resources Committee on Monday 28 March 2011.

In these difficult times when finances are tight we recognise the importance of making best use of tax payers money at all times and the responsibility that councillors have to bear. It was with this in mind that we commissioned a Finance expert to compliment our broader analysis of the business case.

Barnet UNISON takes seriously the proposals outlined in the officer report and the implications for services and our members. I hope you find time to read both reports as they outline significant risks to the council if the business case goes forward in its current format.

I recognise that reading documents of this kind are not always easy online which is why I have ensured hard copies are on their way to you now If any of you would like to discuss the content of these reports I would be only too happy to find time to do so at your convenience.

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary. Standing up for staff and public services Barnet Alliance for Public Services March for public services on 26 March 2011.

Join us on the TUC demo in London. Go to http://www.unison.org.uk/26march for more information and to register your interest.

Not for onward transmission in whole or part without permission

The DRS business case does not assess strategic operational risks such as the potential risk of:

M Financial savings are lower than planned

M Income generation well below targets

M Unanticipated additional costs

M Failure to make required level of investment

M Value for money not achieved or significantly reduced

M Failure to achieve radical transformation of services (“Unless a radically new way of delivering these key services is found it is likely that they will continue to face service reductions in terms of the functions they can offer to our community” (page A7)

M Failure to increase service user satisfaction

M Contract renegotiation or termination

M Inadequate governance arrangements

M Staffing disputes following new working systems, job losses, cuts in terms and conditions.

M “The business case fails to identify the operational risks of outsourcing DRS services, including the governance, financial and service delivery risks.”

M “It also fails to assess the potential knock-on effect on the local economy of significant changes in employment policies, local supply chains and the local environment in Barnet.”

M “There is clearly a risk that user charges will be increased in order to achieve the income generation targets.”

M “The Council should immediately exclude Cemeteries and Crematoria from the scope of the procurement and return to the 2010 options appraisal findings.”

M The Business Case does not assess the future demand for services.

 

To view Dexters full report click here

We asked our Financial expert Adrian Waite a number of questions.

1. “Have all relevant financial information has been included and considered ?”

Answer: “I do not consider that it is included in the reports that are available to me although more information may be available in sources that are not available to me.”

2. “Is all presented financial information is accurate, complete, supported and reliable?”

Answer: “I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of any of the information that has been provided. However, I do not think that all the conclusions that have been reached are adequately supported with complete information.”

3. “Are all assumptions applied to financial data, analysis, assessment and presented information is reliably supported and properly sourced?”

Answer:“I do not believe that all assumptions applied to financial data, analysis and assessment is reliably supported and properly sourced in the reports that are available to me.”

4. “Has relevant or critical financial information has been omitted?”

Answer: “It is difficult to prove a negative (in this case that information exists that has not been reported) but I do not consider that conclusions are adequately supported with data in the reports that are available to me.”

5. “Is the financial analysis in the model is robust, adequate and reliable

Answer: “I do not consider that the financial analysis is sufficiently robust. “The Council has not complied with the requirements of HM Treasury Green Book in the preparation of this Business Case.”

To view his full report click here

Barnet UNISON have commissioned two reports to critque the easyCouncil business case for Development & Regulatory Services (DRS) by handing them over to a large private sector  multinational company. The first group of council services to be given the ‘easyCouncil’ treatment are Cemeteries, planning, Highways, Land charges, Registrars, Environmental health, Building control, trading standards.

Professor Dexter Whitfield (European Services Strategy Unit, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Adelaide, with over 35 years experience of planning, researching and analysing local authority policy documents in Britain and overseas. 

His report can be read here

Adrian Waite (Independent Consultancy Services) was commissioned by Barnet UNISON to examine the financial aspects of the business case. Adrian is a highly experienced and respected local government finance expert. He has held a number of senior roles in local authorities including Director of Finance and s151 Officer and is a fully qualified member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

His report can be read here