Author: admin

A victory for transparency…and a warning for public sector procurement

“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.”

 

“Easy council” scandal puts Town Hall outsourcing reforms in the spotlight.

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

Barnet not so fair? – Heather Wakefield

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

In a speech to delegates at UNISON’s National Conference, the union’s General Secretary, Dave Prentis, said:

March 26th, what a day it was. We marched together, But this week we march on. Because this is our week, together not beaten. Here to experience the unique solidarity of our conference. To share, to learn, to inspire. And be inspired by the struggles of others. To show the world that we’re strong, determined, united.

They’ve declared war on our public services. With Tory donors, City firms, hedge funders back in the heart of government. Financiers like John Nash whose private equity firm, sovereign capital, buys and flogs care homes for the fun of it.

Conference, A year ago, we could have been beaten, lost our way. But in this past year we’ve grown our membership for the 17th year running. We’ve strengthened organising, a new army of organisers. Our branches, fighting back where they can.

Mike Tucker, in Southampton, John Burgess, in Barnet – their necks on the line. 40 branches in dispute, 34,000 members, balloted or taking action. Conference, this union salutes them all and what they are doing to save our members jobs and services.

And we are told that there is no alternative. And as long as they keep preaching that mantra that there is no alternative, I will state on every platform that there are alternatives. Clegg and Cameron could have the guts to go back to the banks, the spivs, the speculators, and tell them on our behalf, “you created this mess – you clear it up.” And I’ll say it again; “If there’s money to bail out the banks, if there’s money to protect their bonuses. If there’s money for war and replacing Trident, there’s money available for our local services and our NHS. If there has to be a pay freeze, make it for the bankers, get them to do more for less.

Full speech here and short video here

 

The damning report said no procurement exercise was undertaken to appoint security firm, Metpro, for which the council has paid £1.4m over five years, and that “officers cannot …give assurances that this will not happen again”.

It said: “The council has failed to comply with its Contract Procedure Rules (CPR) and financial regulations, exposing the council to significant reputational and financial risks.

“No procurement exercise had been undertaken to appoint MetPro, in accordance with the council’s CPR.

“No written contract between the council and MetPro could be found. There is no record of an approval and authorisation for the use of MetPro for providing security services.

“Although we cannot rule out fraud, there have been no allegations of fraud and there is no evidence to suggest that there should be a fraud investigation.”

See the full report here

The council is currently in the process of tendering for contracts for its back office services and regulatory services collectively worth over half a billion pounds – see LGC tomorrow for more.   

The report follows media reports last month that Metpro was to be investigated by a government watchdog after it emerged that it was not properly licensed.

Barnet cabinet member for resources and performance Daniel Thomas (Con) said: “Contract management is an area we need to tighten up on which is exactly why we have this report.  We now need to put in place a clear programme of improvement to match those we ran in these other services.”  

Professor Dexter Whitfield who has provided over 30 reports on Future Shape for Barnet UNISON has written this article:

Commissioning is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The separation of client and contractor roles, the enabling model, is little more than a revamp of the ‘contract city’ concept to outsource most services; the ultimate neoliberal public management.

Barnet LBC, despite claims that Future Shape, easyCouncil and now One Barnet were not mass outsourcing projects, is engaged in procurement to outsource 2,600 jobs, 70% of non-school staff. Detailed analysis of Council documents has revealed in-house options marginalised, operational risks ignored, weak economic and financial cases, no service transformation proposals and no citizen engagement. Taxpayers have no evidence that the risks and impact of the overall model have been assessed…..

To view full article click here

Nine months after transfer to Lovell’s, shell shocked former council workers were told the contract which had been tendered was won by another company (Mears) making a fourth TUPE in less than 6 years!

We had only just learnt that after 9 months of chasing Lovell’s we finally received confirmation from then that they had been given admitted body status. As far as we know not a penny has been paid into workers Pensions although we understand deductions have been made since January.

Dear Councillors

RE: UNISON Analysis of Business Case for Local Authority Trading Company

Please find enclosed copy of our report here

The Council business case is 198 pages and was only released for consultation with our members and members of the public late on Monday 16 May 2011. We have prepared a brief response to highlight our concerns and proposals which I hope you will take time to read and consider. Local Authority Trading Companies are relatively new service delivery model hence our concern about rushing through a proposal which affects social care services. Earlier this week were informed that another LATC Chelsea Care has gone into liquidation. I am enclosing the full report and leave you with four key points: Value for money Value for money was not proven in the draft business plan and exclusion of the financial chapter from the published version of the plan, makes it impossible for service users, staff and trade unions to examine and challenge the viability and sustainability of the business case. Risks Risks for service users and staff have been deliberately understated because the Council is fixated with developing the LATC model so that it can “assess the commercial viability of other services before any longer-term decision is taken regarding their divestment.” The Council’s strategy is to transfer risks to service users and staff, so it can relinquish responsibility for service provision and employer obligations. We understand that Chelsea Care, a London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea LATC, has allegedly gone bankrupt! Serious shortcomings A Business Case should provide a strategic, economic, financial, operational and management case for a change in service delivery, investment or a specific project. Shortcomings identified in the trade union Interim Critique have not been addressed. Lack of market analysis A decision is being taken to establish a trading company without a clear understanding of the sector or market within which the company will operate. The Council seeks to commercialise services, yet fails to be fully prepared for the commercial consequences. Best wishes John Burgess Branch Secretary. Barnet UNISON Standing up for staff and public services Not for onward transmission in whole or part without permission

News reached the branch yesterday that Chelsea Cares a LATC has allegedly gone bankrupt!  We are seeking confirmation on this breaking news and the implications for service users and staff.

Please Note: On 24 May at Cabinet Resources Committee, members o fthis committee are going to agree to transfer all of their adult social care services into a LATC.

Dear officer

Thanks for the response I have read your responses and I have a number of further questions:

 

In relation to question 1 I have been told that a day care service user contracted ‘legionnaire’s disease’ and it was this that led to the legionella check in all of the homes. Can you confirm this is the case? Furthermore you mention that “Barnet public health team has undertaken a look-back exercise” why only for eight months and not a full calendar year? In terms of this exercise did they forget or miss out Merrivale for some other reason?

 

In relation to question 2, I note that in the improvement notice Catalyst you make the following suggestion:

“You should appoint a ‘responsible person’ to take managerial responsibility and provide supervision for the implementation of precautions.”

 

This is of particular importance since the recent incident at Apthorp Lodge identified that there was a lack of communication between Catalyst, Fremantle, Kier and Musketeer. 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.”

 

There four organisations mentioned in the above statement do they not have any health & safety responsibilities to the residents, staff and members of the public?

 

In relation to question 3 it is now three months since we were alerted by the Director of Adult Social Services to the legionella issue. Can you confirm that all three homes are now clear of any legionella infection?

 

In relation to question 4, whilst I am glad to hear we are checking for legionella, can you confirm who is paying for these checks and how long will they continue?

 

In relation to question 6 I assume from the fact you have served an ‘Improvement notice that their previous risk assessments were unsatisfactory?

·         When was the last risk assessment taken for each home ?

·         What do you mean by elevated levels of legionella?

·         What is an acceptable level legionella if as you say ‘Legionella bacteria are ubiquitous’

 

In relation to question 8, now that I understand the technical application of the term ‘outbreak’ I will endeavour not to use it in this case. If someone had approached me much earlier I would have amended my public reports to my members. At the weekend a member of the public alerted me to a story in Glasgow about what I believe is a legionella outbreak:

 

“A rise in the number of people with Legionnaires Disease in Glasgow is being investigated.

 

The NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Public Health Protection Unit are to study the increase in the number of people being diagnosed.

 

Five people have recently tested positive, including an elderly man with underlying medical conditions who died last week”

 

As there are a number of investigations going on without the involvement of the trade unions you must understand that this matter is of concern both for our members, residents and members of the public. If my request for a public inquiry had been agreed we may be all been clearer about what went wrong and what mechanisms will be in place to ensure this does not happen again.

 

I would hope everyone agrees there has been a narrow escape and no one was infected. I am a little worried by your response where you say

 

“All that has happened at these care homes is that Legionella bacteria have been found in the water supply and routine action has been taken to deal with this.”

 

As I don’t know if the homes have been given the all clear it does appear that routine action has not been sufficient and suggests there are further problems.

 

In relation to question 9, I am concerned to read that despite what you describe as comprehensive attempts to deal with the legionella Catalyst are still not able to give an ‘all clear’. It does suggest the problem is more serious than was first indicated in the letter to staff in February.

 

In relation to question 10 it is clear that this matter is not a routine operation but a more complex situation which is contradictory to your response to question 8.

 

In relation to question 11, the improvement notice was served on 16 March and Catalyst had to respond by 7 April 2011.

 

I note that Failure to comply with this Improvement Notice is an offence as provided by Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and s.33 (2A) of this Act renders the offender liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both

 

Can you confirm that they have complied with the notice and if not what action is going to be taken to ensure they comply.

 

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Standing up for staff and public services

Barnet Alliance for Public Services

Dear Councillors

Barnet UNISON has submitted a Competitive Dialogue (CD) Protocol which sets out our expectations for staff and trade union engagement to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Commercial Services. I have enclosed the draft Corporate Procurement Policy we submitted in October 2009 as it sets out our views on engagement and process for a Corporate Procurement policy and the draft Trade Union Proposal ‘Guidance for Contractor’. The CD protocol would sit within the Corporate Procurement Strategy.

As always these documents are proposals sent with the intention we can find a basis to agree a process of what is a high profile and widely scrutinised procedure.

If any councillor wishes to seek clarification on any of these reports please do not hesitate to contact me. The above reports have been circulated to UNISON members for comment.

Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Barnet UNISON

Standing up for staff and public services

To view Protocol click here

To view UNISON Draft Corporate Procurement Policy click here

To view Trade Union Proposal “Equality and Fairness in Procurement Guidance for Contractors” click here