Chris Leary Surrey UNISON on their in-house call Centre

1. What is your name?

Chris Leary

 2. What branch and who do you work for?

I’m a member of the Surrey County branch of UNISON, and I work as an Employee Services Officer for Surrey County Council.

 3. What is your role in the branch?

Communications Officer, Convenor for the Change & Efficiency Directorate and the Chief Executive’s Office, Shared Service Centre & Contact Centre Steward

4. Do you have a call centre?  

Yes, our Contact Centre is based in Conquest House in Kingston upon Thames.

 5. What services does the call centre provide for?

It is the first point of contact for the County Council. It handles queries for Libraries, Registration service, Roads and transport, Schools, childcare and adult education, Adult social care, Children’s social care, recruitment, suppliers and payments for music lessons and the arts service. People can call one number and renew their library book, book a wedding ceremony, report pot holes, vulnerable children and adults to social services, find out about adult education courses in their area, and much more.

6. How long ago has the call centre been in place?

The call centre was established in 2003.

7. How is the new call centre performing?

Excellently. It has won numerous awards for customer service, and is seen as a benchmark throughout the entire public sector for customer service and contact. Just recently it was shortlisted for Best Customer Service in the European Call Centre Awards 2010, placing it alongside blue chip companies such as energy company Scottish Power, insurance firm LV=, telecommunications business Telefonica O2 UK and supermarket chain Tesco.

 8. Is your Council looking to privatise the service?

Not at the moment!

9. Have you got a message for Barnet UNISON customer Service members?

Your bosses might like to tell you that the public sector is bloated and inefficient, but Surrey has shown that to be absolute rubbish. With the right investment and support, public services can more than compete with the “big boys and girls” of the private sector. Keep tall, keep fighting, and show them why public is best!

£123 Billion lost every year!

The following report has been produced by the PCS trade union in response to the latest proposal to cut posts. The report provides an analysis and data on a major income deficit (£123 Billion a year) which in the current financial climate you would think a responsible government should be addressing. Instead they are targeting Benefit Fraud (£1.5bn a year).

Report begins:

The financial crisis was not caused by excessive public spending. That is vital to bear in mind when we hear all around us that the ‘deficit’ must be cut.

This is not a spending crisis this is an income crisis.

In the above chart the ‘deficit’ is the gap or difference between what the government spends (the top line in the chart) and what it receives in income (shown on the bottom line of the chart). That deficit for this year was originally estimated to be £178 Billion. That original estimate has now been revised using more up to date figures and is now estimated to be £156 Billion. A difference between the two estimates of £22 Billion.

The lack of tax revenue did not cause the current financial crisis. The reason for that substantial fall in government income you can see on the chart in 2008 was as a result of the downturn in economic activity – the recession sparked by the near collapse of the worlds banking system. Bailing out the banks in the UK cost £1.3 Trillion, which is 1,300 Billion pounds. The recession increased unemployment and hit tax revenues.

 What the Con Dem government don’t want to talk about is the Tax Gap.

That is the difference between what the government would receive in tax if everyone paid what they should pay and what it actually receives. The difference between what it should receive and what it actually receives is the tax gap; estimates from the PCS union indicate the gap to be £123 Billion, which is 123,000 million pounds.

I repeat that figure again because members are being bombarded by anti-public services propaganda every day.

Tax Gap £123 Billion

PCS asked Richard Murphy a Chartered Accountant and a Tax expert to research and calculate the size of the tax gap. That research has now been published and the tax gap is estimated at £123 Billion, which is 123,000 million pounds per year.

That £123 Billion is made up of three amounts:

·         £25 Billion avoided.

·         £70 Billion evaded.

·         £28 Billion not collected.

The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is as Denis Healy once said “the thickness of a prison wall”. Tax is avoided by exploiting loopholes in tax law. 

The TUC pamphlet “The missing Billions” estimates that £25 Billion each year is avoided by corporations and rich individuals. The pamphlet gives examples of some of the measures used to avoid tax.

One well known example is the tax avoidance used by rich individuals running private equity firms who by classifying their income as capital gains pay 22% less tax than they would otherwise pay if they declared it as income and were subject to income tax at the top rate. Hence one multi-millionaire private equity partner admitted that he paid less tax than his cleaner. The reason for this was, at the time, Capital Gains Tax stood at a rate of 18% whereas the top rate of income tax stood at 40%, a difference of 22%. In his budget speech on 22 June George Osborne said,

“Some of the richest people in this country have been able to pay less tax than the people who clean for them.

That is not fair – and it stems from the avoidance activity that has exploited the wider gap between the rate of Capital Gains Tax and the top rates of income tax.

These practices are costing other taxpayers over £1 Billion every year”

And he raised Capital Gains Tax from 18% to 28%. Great you may think. However, what he did not point out was that the top rate of income tax is now 50%, so with Capital Gains Tax now at 28% the gap between the two is still 22%. Those richest people in the country will still be exploiting that loophole.

£70 Billion Tax evaded

The Richard Murphy report estimates tax evaded to be £70 Billion. The report shows why the official HMRC estimate of tax avoided and evaded totalling £40 Billion is way too low particularly for tax evaded. This is because HMRC concentrates its efforts on those who do make tax returns and ignore the significant elements in society who evade the system altogether. By definition tax evasion is a criminal offence and (surprise, surprise) those evading tax do not tell HMRC about their activities. By relying on data supplied to HMRC they are missing the evasion that is completely outside the tax system.

However, for indirect taxes such as VAT, HMRC employs a ‘top-down’ approach. The gap is estimated by comparing the net theoretical tax yield, which involves assessing the total amount of expenditure in the economy that is liable to VAT, with actual VAT receipts. The difference is the VAT gap. This approach is rational because it seeks to establish the likely tax due independent of data submitted to HMRC. This ‘top- down’ method is the approach adopted by Richard Murphy in his report.

An example of tax evasion was demonstrated in a recent criminal case where an organised gang were convicted of defrauding HMRC of £4.5 Million. They submitted refund claims in the names of fictitious migrant labourers claiming they had overpaid income tax. Now at this point you may think that there is a bit of a flaw in this cunning plan. Given that the details provided to HMRC are for people who don’t actually exist, and haven’t actually paid any income tax, how can they get a refund on tax they haven’t paid? Not a problem. HMRC made the repayments without checking, the gang got £4.5 million from HMRC. This is because HMRC adopted the attitude of ‘pay now, check later’. The judge Christopher Hardy in sentencing the gang also raised concerns about HMRC’s system, “Trust has become a very risky and unwise basis in this day and age with which to disperse millions of pounds of public money”

We agree with the judge. Hence one of the recommendations in the Richard Murphy report is that HMRC should engage staff to check tax repayments before they are made. This isn’t rocket science.

£28 Billion Tax not collected

This is not an estimate. It is the published figure from HMRC as at 31 March 2010 for monies that have been declared or assessed but not paid to HMRC. That debt does not come in by magic and HMRC employs part of its workforce in the Debt Management and Banking section. A section that has also been cut, in the HMRC drive to close offices and reduce its staffing.

Richard Murphys report and PCS say:-

·         More staff should be employed to tackle tax avoidance.

·         More staff should be employed to tackle tax evasion.

·         More staff should be employed to recover tax not collected.

·         We want tax justice. We all have to pay our tax. The banks, the big corporations, the super rich and the criminals should pay their tax too.

End.

Future Shape – Adult Social Care – Flawed

Future Shape Social Care – flawed

The Barnet Future Shape programme is embarking on a policy of mass privatisation. The Council employed consultants two years ago to look at the future of Public Services; the programme was called Future Shape. Two years on and with a national media profile, future shape now known as easyCouncil has finally revealed its true purpose….. A ‘Commissioning Council’

Did Barnet really need to spend £2.5million taxpayer’s money to come up with an ideology from the 80’s i.e. Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT)?

This was Thatcher’s lowest-bid compulsory competitive tendering and her environment minister Nicholas Ridley’s vision of ‘enabling’ councils, which would meet just once a year to hand out the contracts to multinationals. Despite what anyone says it is the multinationals that are going to benefit at the expense of the customer and the tax payer!

A number of Future Shape projects are taking place. Members will be aware that the Trade Unions have registered complaints with our Employers about the secrecy in which the Option Appraisals are being carried out.

The first Project in Adult Social Services has been shrouded in secrecy; the Trade Unions with the support of Professor Dexter Whitfield have produced a report outlining serious flaws in the Adult Social Care Options Appraisal.

To read the Full report click here

Future Shape – The questions which need to be answered and we do!

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

How much?????

Our Councils decision to take a massive pay increase whilst at the same time telling staff, residents to be ready for cuts in jobs and services has reached local, regional and national attention.

http://www.barnet-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=25444&headline=

http://www.barnet-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=25439&headline=

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8270489.Coleman_defends_new_council_allowance_pay_packets/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10635391

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/barnet-councillors-should-be-ashamed

Now was not the time to implement the awards there is and always was an alternative.

 

 

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.

1 194 195 196 197 198 226