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.

 

 

 

 

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.

From what we have seen so far the Councils Future Shape programme appears to be a a return to Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) albeit with a 21 Century makeover.

We have submitted a report to the Council called ‘Economic case for an in-house bid’

which you can view here

 

To download poster click here

Tonight the Joint Trade Unions are meeting with our Employers (councillors) because of the very real concern that the Future Shape programme appears to be embarking on the mass privatisation of all of the councils services.

Our full report can be found here

We are asking for the following:

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.

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.

c)         A guarantee that TUPE will last for the length of contract.

d)        TUPE Plus is adopted by the Council.

e)        Our Pensions questions are answered before any decisions to outsource are made.

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.

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.

Cabinet Resources Committee 17 June.

The following is a direct quote from the report

“Adult Social Services- Catalyst Deficit Claim.

A long running dispute exists between the Council and Catalyst concerning the provision of adult social services. The case went to arbitration in February 2010 with a ruling expected in the Summer of 2010. Substantial legal and other professional advice has been given to the Council to ensure it was able to present the best possible case.”

Further on in the report it reveals:

“£731k spend relating to the current costs of the Catalyst arbitration. Although Cabinet agreed to fund these costs from corporate litigation reserve, a decision was taken corporately as part of year end processes that these costs would be met directly by the Directorate from its own resources.”

This was one contract, a long contract 15 years. Back in 1998 Barnet UNISON urged the Council not to make a rushed decision. Senior officers pressurised Councillors into making a decision. We had a report commissioned By Professor Dexter Whitfield detailing the risks and recommending alternatives.

Future Shape is much much bigger. If we don’t start learning from mistakes then the consequences could be massive.

We are asking for the Future Shape Option Appraisal includes a fully resources in-house bid.

So what is there to hide? 

Newspaper headlines are dominated by the story that Government Ministers are being asked to look at 40% cuts. As you read the article we are told that no one will really have to make this level of cuts.

“Who do they think they are dealing with?” “Do they take the public for mugs?”

It is oldest and meanest trick in the book. You build up the scale of the cuts far beyond what you want so when you reduce the amount everyone breathes a sigh of relief!

There is a word for this sort of behaviour it is ‘bullying!”

Consultation on the Cuts

Incredible as it seems but not only have the Con-Dem Government tabled the Budget from Hell, they want public sector workers to help them!

To view the letter from Nick & Dave click here

(My letter must have got lost in the post!).

They have even set up a web site called Spending Challenge Web Site

http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

You can email your ideas here.

Email: public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gov.uk

Email: camerond@parliament.uk

Email: cleggn@parliament.uk

How about sending some messages like

·        Deep and rapid cuts to public spending are irresponsible – they’ll make the deficit worse by weakening the economy and adding to unemployment. Cutting public sector jobs costs more in lost tax and extra benefits than it saves.

·        Raising VAT is regressive, putting the heaviest burden on the poorest. Cutting public services is even more unfair – research commissioned by UNISON shows it hits disadvantaged households six times harder than the richest.

·        The fairest way to reduce the deficit is to make the banks cover the costs of the crisis they caused, and tackle tax avoidance and evasion by big corporations and wealthy individuals – this could raise more than £50bn in annual revenue.

You want more suggestions click here.

Options Appraisal for the Future Shape Adult Social Care Provision.

Options	Strategic Fit for Transforming Social Care	Deliverability	Acceptability			VFM	Totals
			Customer	Council	Staff
Transfer to Barnet Homes	5	5	4	4	3	4	25
LATC	4	4	3	4	3	3	21
Social Enterprise (start-up)	4	3	2	3	3	3	18
Remain In-House	2	3	4	2	3	1	19 15*
Tender/Trade Sale	4	2	2	3	1	2	14
Closure of Service	1	1	1	1	1	1	6

* Please note the table sent to the Trade Unions (see above) scored the in-house option 19 but as you can see the total is 15.

This Project has been shrouded in secrecy from the outset once the decision to exclude the Trade Unions was made. We have attempted to engage in the process and submitted 46 questions to the Adult Social Care Future Shape Project team.

To date we have not had a response.

To view our questions click here 

 

For the last two years the Trade Unions have been seeking to ensure that the Future Shape programme is:

1.     The process is open and transparent

2.     There is genuine trade union and staff engagement in delivering an in-house option for the Options Appraisal.

On Wednesday 30 June I attended the first of two ‘Away Days’ being provided for staff delivering services such as Finance, Legal Services, Customers Services, Libraries, Audit, IS, Procurement, Property Services, HR, Pay Roll, Pensions, Revs & Bens. 

The purpose of the meeting was to launch the creation of the New Support Services Future Shape project and to explain the reasons behind it.  The major staffing revelation was that the Council has decided not to include the Option of an in-house bid in the Options Appraisal process. Staff were told that they would be looking to the services of one of the big top 100 FTSE companies e.g. IBM, SERCO, MOUCHEL, CAPITA

Whilst this should not have come as such a shock to staff, hearing officially that the Council would not be giving them the opportunity to compete clearly upset some staff.

More important is on what basis an in-house bid has been ruled out of the Options Appraisals. No data has been produced or provided to the Trade Unions which could demonstrate the rationale for this decision. Last year I sought a meeting with the previous Leader of the Council because of fears that in spite of the Future Shape jargon, what we was seeing was old style privatisation with a 21^st century makeover!

The meeting was useful and he provided the following quote:

“Once we get to look at the ‘who’ it may be that we partner with other organisations to provide a service in a different way.  Equally, it may be that we continue to provide a service because we are the only organisation that can achieve sufficiently high quality at sufficiently low cost.  This is an interpretation the Council does what only the Council can do. Clearly we have many excellent services and we would not embark on unnecessary disruption, but we would be in favour of change if we were confident it would bring significant improvements in quality and value for money”.

which we published last year for the full article click here

The question which remains unanswered for the 700 staff is

“How can the Council be ‘confident’ they can bring in a private sector partner to deliver better value and service improvements if they do not put up an in-house option in the Option Appraisal process?”

This would be a massive contract for the private sector and we along with other Councils have had our fingers burnt by the private sector. If we really have learnt lessons then “why are we ‘shunning’ in-house bids?”

Options Appraisal or Group Stage explained

One of the regular criticisms of Future Shape has been the jargon used. To try and help members understand the process I am using the analogy of World Cup group stage qualification process.

Service Delivery Options	Points scored
In-house team
Management Buy Out (MBO)
Barnet Homes
Local Authority Trading Company (LATC)
Joint Venture
Private Sector sale
Closure of Service

 Please note: We have asked the Council, but have had no response as to how many Options go through to the next stage where a Full Business case will be produced (Followers of the real World Cup will know that only the top two go through to the next stage).

MEMBER ALERT: If you do not progress to the next stage you are out. If the in-house option is discarded at this stage staff will be facing the prospect of being transferred out of the Council.

To help understand the process and implications it is often best to see a live example.

Below is a table showing the scores of an

Options Appraisal for the Future Shape Adult Social Care Provision.

Options	Strategic Fit for Transforming Social Care	Deliverability	Acceptability			VFM	Totals
			Customer	Council	Staff
Transfer to Barnet Homes	5	5	4	4	3	4	25
LATC	4	4	3	4	3	3	21
Social Enterprise (start-up)	4	3	2	3	3	3	18
Remain In-House	2	3	4	2	3	1	19 15*
Tender/Trade Sale	4	2	2	3	1	2	14
Closure of Service	1	1	1	1	1	1	6

* Please note the table sent to the Trade Unions (see above) scored the in-house option 19 but as you can see the total is 15.

The Trade Unions have registered a ‘failure  to agree’ over the Options Appraisal process to council officers and have requested a Corporate Joint Negotiation Consultation Committee with councillors in order we can formally discuss our concerns. The example above has been shrouded in secrecy from the outset once the decision to exclude the Trade Unions was made. We have attempted to engage in the process. We have submitted 46 questions to the Adult Social Care Future Shape Project team and to date we have not had a response.