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.

 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.

* 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.

Welcome to the Barnet UNISON Twilight Zone.  You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension – a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas.

You’ve just crossed over into the Barnet UNISON Twilight Zone. 

The story of our branch being privatised has not happened. 

What is happening is our Council Services are at risk as a result of the recent 6.3 Billion budget cuts package and the likely level of cuts to funding to the Council as a result of the emergency budget on 22 June.

Fire Sale of the Public Sector?

It is important that the process of deciding what the Council does and doesn’t do in the future is open and transparent. Whilst Ministers ‘spin’ the myth that there are thousands of residents looking to set up co-ops/social enterprises etc to run services the reality is very different. Banks are not lending, and if they do, it is likely to be to multi-nationals e.g. IBM, Mouchel, Capita, BT.  In the knowledge that the Government are announcing their intention that the Public Sector debt must be cut back, the multi-nationals are circulating the public sector like sharks waiting for big public sector contracts to keep them afloat. It is the multi-nationals which will be looking to run our schools and it is easy to understand why. If they take over a school it means they take over the property (currently the schools are owned by us the public). Schools are one of the last massive public property assets and if the ‘Fire Sale’ goes ahead they could all be gone by the end of the Con-Dem first term in Government.

The Trade Unions have a responsibility to organise. But to organise in a way that they have never done for a long long time. In the past there has been too much rhetoric from General Secretary’s about joint working. History is clear that they have not delivered except for one day in the defence of the Pensions in the Public Sector. That was only one day. The fight over the survival of Public Services can only be won by working within our own communities.

‘A Manifesto for Council Housing’ Congress House, London.

Throughout the conference every speaker recognised the good work that Alan Walter had done to defend council housing prior to his untimely death. Speakers in the first part of the morning spoke of the housing situation in their own boroughs as well as an overview of the national picture. They all spoke of a need to make serious financial reforms.

Austin Mitchell MP reported that a major council house building and renovation programme will meet the urgent need of the 1.8 million households on council waiting lists. He stated that £2,000 grants to first time buyers and notional 10% shares for tenants will drive up house prices and encourage yet more borrowing by those least able to afford it. In his view the Governments latest Reform proposals to allow councils to keep more of tenants’ rents are welcome but do not go far enough. ‘The government has been willing to write off all the debt for homes in stock transfers. It is unjust that they are refusing to do the same for council tenants.’

Frank Dobson MP spoke of the ‘rent robbery’ whereby for decades the government had been taking rent monies and not giving enough money for the upkeep of council homes. Ministers claim much of this money is used to pay for ‘historic debt’. A large amount of the debt is actually new debt finance for the ALMOs. Despite its claims the government put no new money into ALMOs; rather council tenants collectively pay from their rents. He spoke of the fact that bad housing affects lives, as in health and education.

Other speakers included Pete Challis, National Housing Officer for UNISON who spoke of the Tories who have said they will give money for housing but who will take from other services such as refuse and homecare in order to pay for it. Simon Hughes MP mentioned the Labour Manifesto that wanted councils to be able to borrow at a lower rate of interest and promised a mass new build programme with apprenticeships. Insulation would be offered for homes and local authorities would be able to use section 606 money to build housing or renovate estates. Jack Dromey, Deputy General Secretary UNITE,  Linda McNeil, Leeds Tenants Federation, Paul O’Brien, APSE Scottish Tenants Organisation, Cllr Deborah Edwards, exec member for Housing, Reading City Council and the Chair – Eileen Short of DCH all contributed.

The second part of the morning was taken up with a workshop concentrating on Finance Reforms – are they good for tenants?

Councillor Catherine Smart, exec member housing, Cambridge City Council, gave her views as a member of the Lib Dems. She spoke of the stupidity of rents being set only two weeks before tenants are informed and how this does not allow for any planning.

Councillor Phil Waker, exec member housing for Barking and Dagenham Council, explained how it was impossible to get money to pull down old buildings and in his borough they had 5 regeneration estates that needed to be knocked down. He also spoke of the large amount of residents in private rented accommodation, paying high rents that are being paid for by Housing Benefit. If there were more council properties available this money would be saved. In his area the BNP are using housing as a means to attract members by saying that immigrants are taking all the council housing.

Steve Partridge, Chartered Institute of Housing then gave a detailed explanation of the expected Reform. Six local councils piloted the scheme in 2006 -08. A project team was set up from a range of services and organisations. There had been three work streams – Financial detail, Technicalities, and Capacity and Awareness building. The last group will be holding workshops for tenants later in the Spring. Consultation will continue over the election period and a response will be given at the end of June/July.

Requests for willingness to work with the scheme will go out in April 2011.

The proposal is to dismantle 30yrs worth of future HRA subsidy in one go and share it out nationally to 172 local authorities. Rents will be retained locally as will Right to Buy receipts. The system of council grants on offer is not enough money for repairs and decent homes’ works. The new system will allow more transparency on what is paying for what.

Recommendations for the future included

• Ring fencing the national Housing Revenue Account and ensuring that all council tenants’ rents are spent on their homes.
• Raise allowances for management, maintenance and major repairs. To be set at a level determined by independent research.
• Ensure that any formula for allowances is based on a 30 year settlement for long term stability.
• Ring fence all right to buy receipts to be used to improve existing and new build council housing.
• Write off or take direct responsibility form the cost of historic debt and remove this element from the housing subsidy system.
• The government must fulfil its promise to provide capital grants to meet the backlog of work for both Decent Homes and other elements.
• Local ring fencing, enforce a set of accounting rules to ensure that the costs of all shared services are correctly apportioned between the Housing Revenue Account and the general fund.
• Provide a public sector safety net as part of any self financing agreement.
• Enable a massive programme of new build council building
• Moratorium on stock transfer and other privatisation of council housing assets and land until Review outcome and implications are fully implemented.
• Protect secure, affordable and democratically accountable council housing – no undermining, means testing or time limiting secure tenancies
• Improve the guidance on stock transfer ballots to ensure a fair and balanced debate.

Anne Denison. UNISON Convenor for Barnet Homes.

Pensions & Pay

More headlines in the newspapers and airwaves about our supposed “gold plated” public sector pensions.  Over the next 8 months we are going to see an increase in scaremongering from the media about our pension scheme.

The latest UNISON report states “The average LGPS pension in payment is still only around £4000pa and the average for women is around £2000pa that’s hardly gold plated!

If members [not just in Barnet] working in public services want to keep their pensions then they need to start defending them now. The government are making plans now, hence the press releases which will increase the nearer we get to the general election.

In the past the union has provided pro forma letters for members to send to their MPs, if members want to stop this attack on your future then you need to approach you MP now. If you can’t make it to one of your MP’s surgeries, email your MP with your letter. Ask the question:
 
“Will they vote to dismantle our pension scheme?”

Don’t be fooled by the alternatives, they are not acceptable and if implemented will not be sustainable for the future. Younger workers will see no benefit in joining such a scheme.

You might feel you are living quite comfortably now, but if the pension scheme is dismantled it will push millions of families into poverty and increase the burden on the state. How crazy is that?

Unfortunately, until we can have a grown up conversation about pensions we are going to have to deal with ‘headline grabbing sound bites’ from politicians seeking votes at the next general election.

What you can do
Contact your MP
Become a UNISON rep in your team
Start discussing the pension scheme in your work place

Pay

Our response to this years pay ballot has not been great, but having a ballot in the middle of the summer doesn’t help. There are two ways pay can improve, nationally and locally for example in a restructure your grade may increase.
National Pay ballot is looking at 1%, according to UNISON report most councils budgeted between 2- 2.5%. Our council budgeted for 2%. Amongst the London Councils there appears to be strong feeling that there should have been no increase except for the lower grades (no details). There were reports  that London councils were considering pulling out of the national pay talks machinery.
“Merrick Cockell (Con), chairman of London Councils, said the decision, worth 1% to most staff and 1.25% to the lowest paid, was likely to prompt the capital bloc to consider joining the 40 or so other authorities which set their own pay and conditions.”

Whilst this is unlikely to happen this time, it is something for ALL members to note as there is clear government policy for more local negotiation thus undermining national bargaining.

Local Pay
The average council worker goes through a restructure almost on an annual basis in which case there is an opportunity for an increase in pay. The LBB procedure for all restructures is covered in Managing Change. Staff should be consulted at the beginning of the process and given opportunity to comment on the content of role profiles. It is only after agreement on the RP’s will HR grade the posts, afterwards the Trade Unions grade the posts and compare with the HR scores. It is becoming increasingly the case that the trade unions grading scores are different to HR scores. In such cases we sometimes have to carry out a consultative ballot of the members concern to see how strongly members feel about what could be an increase of one or two increments. In these harsh economic times who can afford to lose a possible small increase in pay?

Accept it or you will be privatised!
This is not something new, but it is something that all public sector workers will have heard before but I predict something similar will be heard across public sector workplaces across the UK. I believe that the 2010 version may read “accept it & be privatised”, despite the fact that it is generally accepted privatisation does not save the public purse!

What about Barnet?
Despite media headlines which were simply quite mad, the future is still very uncertain, the sooner we have something concrete for staff to consult on the better.

I expect something much more transparent than in Phase 2 which saw a chosen few discuss the future for public services, whilst in the background, consultants were busy providing the financial case. By that I mean the efficiency savings, it is clear from looking at the contributions on the intranet that the groups were not party to the figures given for the Cabinet report in July this year. The Trade Union concern still remains that these figures were crude estimates with little or no substance.

Nationally one of the biggest criticisms of councils going into strategic partnerships has been the poor analysis of actual savings. Exaggerated claims are made to councillors quite understandably worried about the next poor financial settlement from central government. A consultant comes in and promises them the ‘Golden Fleece’. Is it no wonder that they agree to these sort of poorly conceived remedies to the increasingly poor state of public sector finances.

The only winners are the consultants, KPMG, Deloittes, PwC who grow fat on fees from the public sector organisations desperately looking for the magic pill to solve all ills.

When are public bodies going to learn? When are we going to tap the experience & expertise within our own organisations? When we use consultants, we should do so using robust performance monitoring of their contributions to the project.

It has been widely reported that the Trade Unions are being consulted throughout the Future Shape process. The Joint Trade Unions want to make it clear that they have had no part in the decision to privatise these services

Last week the Trade Unions were informed that Cemetery & Cremations services were going to be privatised (read public report here

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/meetings/meetingdetail.asp?meetingid=4664

Pages 74 – 80

The background papers can be found here

10.1 London Borough of Barnet – Barnet Cemetery and Crematorium Option Appraisal – October 2008 – Sector Projects)

The Consultants were Capita. Their report was conducted between August and October last year. Yet the Trade Unions and staff were not told that the report was being conducted?

The report was written before the recession.

Do you remember this?

This appeared in January 2009 as part of Phase Two of the Future Shape. Cems & Cremas are clearly defined as a Quick Win. Clearly someone knew something the Trade Unions and staff didn’t.

Cems & Crems Timeline

August – October 2008 Capita Report produced (Trade Unions & staff not informed).

January 2009 Cems & Crems appears described as a ‘Quick Win’ in Future Shape Document

14 April 2009 TU’s told for the first time that a report recommending privatisation of Cems & Crems is going to Cabinet Resources Committee

23 April 2009 Cabinet Resources Committee make a decision on Cems & Crems

The Trade Unions are seeking an urgent meeting with the Director responsible for these Services