Dear Colleagues

I want to first of all I want to send a BIG BIG thank you to all of you who took part in the strike action on Tuesday. I know how hard it was for you to take strike action is never easy and in these economic times it is even harder. Over the last couple of weeks members have been subjected to a bombardment of communications which was clearly designed to try to influence you not to take strike action. You took the brave decision not to be intimidated and made your voice loud and clear. You took the message out on the streets of Barnet. Residents who had never heard of One Barnet, do now!

 

You delivered 7,500 newspapers and leaflets, any political party would be proud if they could do that in a day.

 

You can view some of the pictures of the day here and a couple of pictures attached

 

Here is a message from UNISON General Secretary to all our members who took strike action

“Dear John

As you take action today, I want you to know that I stand with you. As do our 1.4 million members

We’re beside you as you stand up to the Council. We’re beside you as you stand up to the reckless plans of that council that threaten to destroy the services you’ve worked so hard to build. These are services that are vital to Barnet, to the community you live and work in. To threaten these services is sheer madness.

There are around 400 of you taking action in Barnet, but there are 1.4 million of us in UNISON.

And I want you to remember today that you’re not alone in Barnet, we are with you every step of the way

Yours in solidarity

Dave Prentis”

 

 

Barnet UNISON members were not the only people to stage a walk out.

I attended the Full Council Meeting to listen to the debate about the One Barnet Programme. The debate was cut short. The Labour Councillors decided to register their protest by ‘walking out of the Council meeting.

 

“The Mayor unfortunately chose to cut short the Opposition-led debate on OneBarnet despite repeated protestations on the part of Labour councillors. She may argue that it was on the grounds that the Council meeting was running late. However, having just allowed the Administration-led debate to run for the full 30 minutes the decision was ill-judged, anti-democratic and partisan – something the Mayor should be at pains to avoid. The Conservative Administration seem determined to press ahead with the OneBarnet project regardless of any challenge and their high-handed and arrogant behaviour has to stop. Opportunities for open and democratic debate in the Council meetings have been progressively eroded over recent years and I and my fellow Labour Councillors believed it was time to draw a line. I made a clear statement  on behalf of the Labour councillors that the situation was absolutely unacceptable and we left the meeting.” (Alison Moore Councillor , Leader of the Labour Party)

 

I am concerned about the impact this is having on the morale of the workforce especially when morale is at an all time low.

Yesterday staff have received another communication about TUPE and Pensions. This letter refers to TUPE transfers going back 5 years. It is interesting the Council choose to only go back 5 years, because the mass transfers of Council staff took place between 2000- 2005

 

I want to take this opportunity to go over the ‘Council offer’, which has been imposed on staff last week through the use of quite extraordinary communications. 

 

“Is this a generous offer???”

1. All employees in services moving to a new employer will be able to continue their membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme uninterrupted and unchanged

2. Local union recognition will be protected for staff moving to external suppliers

3. Terms and conditions of staff transferred will be protected for at least one year after leaving the council’s employment

4. Any changes to terms and conditions after that first year will have to be negotiated with the appropriate trade union.

 

Now take a look at the real story they don’t want you to read and then compare it with the ‘Council Offer’

 

1. Fremantle

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

They took their pensions with them (less than 20% of staff are now left in the scheme)

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

Fremantle recognised UNISON

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

Fremantle consulted with the UNISON over changes to terms & conditions

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

Fremantle waited a couple of years before the destroyed the terms & conditions of our members

 

2. Greenwich Leisure

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

They took their pension with them (less than 1% left in the scheme)

 

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

Greenwich recognised UNISON

 

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

Greenwich Leisure consulted with UNISON over changes to terms & conditions after a couple of years. 

 

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

In the time since staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure I can report there are now no staff left on council terms and conditions

 

3. Cleaning Contractors (there have been 2 TUPE transfers in 7 years!)

 

When cleaners were transferred the Cleaning Contractors

They took their pensions (less than 1% are left in the scheme)

 

When cleaners were transferred the Cleaning Contractors

The contractors recognised UNISON

 

When cleaners were transferred the Cleaning Contractors

Contractors consulted with UNISON

 

When cleaners were transferred the Cleaning Contractors

They waited over a year before attacking terms & conditions

 

4. Home Care workers

 

When home care workers were transferred to Housing 21

They took their pension with them (less than 20% left in the scheme)

 

When home care workers were transferred to Housing 21

They recognised UNISON

 

When home care workers were transferred to Housing 21

They consulted with UNISON when they attacked our members terms & conditions

 

5. Housing Repair workers

 

When housing repairs were transferred to Connaught’s

They took their pensions (there are less than 30% of them left in)

 

When housing repairs were transferred to Connaught’s

Connaught’s recognised UNISON

 

When housing repairs were transferred to Connaught’s

Connaught’s consulted with UNISON before attacking our members terms & conditions.

 

Our members working in housing repairs are now working for Lovells but are now facing their fourth TUPE in 6 years

 

UNISON response to the ‘Council Offer’

 

We told the Council the following:

 

1. Location: The number 1 concern for our members. If the contractor plans to deliver services outside of the borough all the other points in the council offer are subsequently meaningless if you are made redundant. UNISON said the services must be located within the borough. We have consistently been saying this since 2008.

 

2. Pension scheme. The Pension Scheme must be open to new starters

 

3. Protection: Protection should be for the life of the contract or in case of 10 year contracts a minimum of 5 years.

TUPE has been a concern for Barnet staff since the launch of Future Shape/easycouncil/One Barnet.

The most common question asked by staff in the last 3 years is

 

“How long does TUPE last?”

There is no real answer. It covers the moment you are transferred to the new employer. Most companies wait at least a year before they start on terms & conditions. In our local examples above that was the case. UNISON knows it, the Council knows it, which is why UNISON is saying the Council is being disingenuous when it states

 

“Terms and conditions of staff transferred will be protected for at least one year after leaving the council’s employment”

 

If the contractor can claim there is an economic and /or technical or organisational (aka ETO) reason for change they can consult on changes to terms & conditions, this is what happened to all the former council employees.

 

UNISON understands the risks to our members and services to residents. It is our role as a trade union to try and protect our member’s livelihoods. That is what Trade Unions do.

No self respecting Trade Union would do otherwise. Our branch has attempted over three years to enter into a genuine dialogue with the Council and that is still our position.

Up until the 6 September we were waiting for the full & final offer which we would submit to our members for consultation. However, things changed dramatically when the Council launched a pre-emptive attempt to undermine and spread confusion amongst our members by using what members have described as ‘bullying and intimidatory use of council communications.’

 

UNISON have consistently made it clear that we would suspend any action once we received a final offer.

 Best wishes

John Burgess

Branch Secretary.

Barnet UNISON

www.barnetunison.me.uk

Barnet UNISON “Watch it & Share it”

Barnet UNISON Facebook

Barnet UNISON Twitter

To put it mildly there is now a war of words taking place within the Council.

UNISON is concerned about the impact is having on a workforce where morale is at an all time low and staff understandable looking for ways to leave. The fact that there are so few opportunities makes for a stressful work environment.

I want to take this opportunity to go over the Council offer, which they have imposed on their staff last week through the use of quite extraordinary communications.

The Generous Offer???

1. All employees in services moving to a new employer will be able to continue their membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme uninterrupted and unchanged

2. Local union recognition will be protected for staff moving to external suppliers

3. Terms and conditions of staff transferred will be protected for at least one year after leaving the council’s employment

4. Any changes to terms and conditions after that first year will have to be negotiated with the appropriate trade union.

Now compare with what has happened to former Barnet Council staff

1. Fremantle

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

They took their pensions with them (less than 20% of staff are now left in the scheme)

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

Fremantle recognised UNISON

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

Fremantle consulted with the UNISON

When Care staff were outsourced to Fremantle

Fremantle waited a couple of years before the destroyed the terms & conditions of our members

2. Greenwich Leisure

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

They took their pension with them (less than 1% left in the scheme)

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

Greenwich recognised UNISON

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

Greenwich Leisure consulted with UNISON over changes to terms & conditions after a couple of years.  

When staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure

In the time since staff were transferred to Greenwich Leisure there are now no staff left on council terms and conditions

3. Cleaning Contractors

When cleaners were privatised

They took their pensions (less than 1% are left in the scheme)

When cleaners were privatised

The contractors recognised UNISON

When cleaners were privatised

Contractors consulted with UNISON

When cleaners were privatised

They waited over a year before attacking terms & conditions

4. Home Care workers

When home care staff were transferred to Housing 21

They took their pension with them (less than 20% left in the scheme)

When home care staff were transferred to Housing 21

They recognised UNISON

When home care staff were transferred to Housing 21

They consulted with UNISON when they attacked our members terms & conditions

5. Housing Repair workers

When housing repairs were transferred to Connaught’s

They took their pensions (there are less than 30% of them left in)

When housing repairs were transferred to Connaught’s

Connaught’s recognised UNISON

When housing repairs were transferred to Connaught’s

Connaught’s consulted with UNISON before attacking our members terms & conditions.

Our members working in housing repairs are now working for Lovells but are now facing their fourth TUPE in 6 years

UNISON response

We told the Council that

1. Location: The number 1 concern for our members. If the contractor plans to deliver services outside of the borough all the other points in the council offer are subsequently meaningless if you are made redundant. UNISON said the services must be located within the borough. We have consistently been saying this since 2008.

2. Pension scheme. The Pension Scheme must be open to new starters

3. Protection: Protection should be for the life of the contract or in case of 10 year contracts a minimum of 5 years.

TUPE has been a concern for Barnet staff since the launch of Future Shape/easycouncil/One Barnet.

The most common question asked by staff in the last 3 years is

“How long does TUPE last?”

There is no real answer. It covers the moment you are transferred to the new employer. Most companies wait at least a year before they start on terms & conditions. In our local examples above that was the case. UNISON knows it, the Council knows it, which is why UNISON is saying the Council is being disingenuous when it states

“Terms and conditions of staff transferred will be protected for at least one year after leaving the council’s employment”

If the contractor can claim there is an economic and /or technical or organisational (aka ETO) reason for change they can consult on changes to terms & conditions, that is what happened to all the former council employees.

UNISON understands the risks and as a trade union it is our role to try and protect our members. That is what trade unions do.

No self respecting trade union would do otherwise. Our branch has attempted over three years to enter into a genuine dialogue with the Council and that is still our position.

Up until the 6 September we were waiting for the full & final offer which we would submit to our members for consultation. However, things changed dramatically when the Council launched a pre-emptive attempt to undermine and spread confusion amongst our members by using what members have described as bullying and intimidatory use of council communications.

UNISON have consistently made it clear that we would suspend any action once we received a final offer.

Yesterday the Government Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) published this report the title of the report (their words not mine!)

“Government and IT- “A Recipe For Rip-Offs”:

Here are a few quotes from the report

One of the report’s recurring themes is the dominance of Government IT by a small number of large companies.

Bernard Jenkin commented:

“The Government has said that it is overly reliant on an “oligopoly” of suppliers; some witnesses went further and described the situation as a ‘cartel.’ Whatever we call the situation it has led to an inexcusable situation that sees governments waste an obscene amount of public money.”

“Committee chairman, Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, said that according to some sources, the government had paid contractors between seven and 10 times more than the standard rate.”

“The last Labour government spent £16bn in IT projects in 2009.”

 “It warned: “The lack of IT skills in government and over-reliance on contracting out is a fundamental problem which has been described as a ‘recipe for rip-offs’.”

“IT procurement has too often resulted in late, over-budget IT systems that are not fit for purpose.”

You can read the damning report here

You really could not make it up!

To sum up the report the government has been ripped off by the private sector (what a surprise!)

M They have placed contracts worth £16billion a year in the hand of the ‘Big Boys’ (please take note Barnet Homes!)

M They have been paying 10 times the going rate for the work (Please take note One Barnet fans).

M Poor Procurement often resulted in late, over-budget IT systems that are not fit for purpose (please take note One Barnet fans).

£16 billion a year. Incredible, remember that figure when your pension is being attacked or your job is threatened by cuts to funding or privatisation. How can politicians stand up in front of cameras; when they can’t put their own house in order!

If the above report is true we are the tax payer are paying to line the pockets of the private sector and at the same time being asked to take a cuts to our pensions, redundancy or cuts to our terms and conditions.

Speaking on the Today Programme the committee’s chair Bernard Jenkin said the Government have outsourced too many IT projects and that there has been “too cosy” a relationship with big IT firms

One Barnet programme is systematically bundling up Council services and putting out to the market to deliver them.

If someone would like to explain why One Barnet is different to the above please send in your response and UNISON will publish.

The One Barnet Programme (OBP) talks about the Council having ‘a different relationship with the citizen’, staff will have heard at One Barnet briefings that the OBP ‘puts the citizen at the heart of everything the council does’

In light of the above Barnet UNISON decided to commission the view of an ordinary citizen on One Barnet Programme.

You can view his response here

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

Madness by Madness

Some days I think is it me or has the world gone completely mad, do members have these sorts of days?

So my music video for this week is Madness by Madness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8J1istSg8

Privatisation Special??

Today I have been inundated by emails highlighting a number of reports about privatisation of public services. It is very, very clear from reading flawed options appraisals and business cases for the One Barnet no evidence has been produced to substantiate the exaggerated claims that privatisation of Barnet Council services and staff will deliver savings.

Barnet UNISON has produced almost 30 detailed reports on easyCouncil and recently submitted two detailed reports on the business case for the privatisation of Development and Regulatory Services (DRS).

I want to quickly remind members of what the reports said

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) was commissioned by Barnet UNISON three years ago to provide consultancy support for the Easycouncil/Future Shape/One Barnet programme you can view his reports here.

Dexter Whitfield said this about the DRS business case:

·         “The DRS Business Case has a superficial appearance of authenticity but is fundamentally not fit for purpose and elected members have a duty to decide it is non-compliant.”

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

 

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.

I

Adrian Waite said this about the DRS business case

“During the thirty years that I have worked in local government finance as a local government officer and management consultant, including some time as Finance Director of a Borough Council, I have seen and written many business cases, business plans and options appraisals.”

“This business case is remarkable for the apparent lack of robust evidence to support its main conclusions that £28million of savings and increased income is achievable and that this can only be delivered through outsourcing.”

To read Dexter Whitfield’s report click here

To Read Adrian Waite’s report click here

 

Back to the articles

It has been astonishing to read the number of articles about the risks of privatisation in the national media. I had to keep checking that they had not been written by UNISON

“The government was not prepared to run the political risk of fully transferring services to the private sector”  Note of a meeting between Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude and CBI director John Cridland

Lots of members believe that One Barnet is simply political ideological. Have a read of the following articles see what you think.

1. Outsourcing ‘not an inevitable response’ to austerity, says Socitm report

new warning note about the risks of outsourcing IT appears in a briefing from Socitm Insight, the research arm of the public sector IT managers’ association.

Costs of Outsourcing – Uncovering the Real Risks accepts that there are good reasons for outsourcing, especially for smaller organisations. However, outsourcing a major component of the ICT service, or even the whole service, “is a major commitment and fraught with risk”.

According to the report, Socitm’s benchmarking service, which has compared costs and user satisfaction over a decade, shows that, when comparing the costs for any service; most elements will be more expensive if outsourced. The risks associated with benchmarking begin at the tender stage when suppliers will benefit from being experts at the process of negotiating contract terms, in contrast with the local authority that will go to market only rarely for a major outsourcing, the report says.

The briefing also counsels public services to avoid the mistake of outsourcing information assets alongside their technology.

‘Outsourcing should not be considered an inevitable response to austerity’ says Martin Greenwood, author of Cost of outsourcing. ‘Even smaller organisations that need to gain economies of scale, and struggle to keep up to date with technological development, should consider collaboration and sharing with other local public services as a genuine alternative. If they do take the plunge into outsourcing, they should make sure they are aware of the pitfalls and know how to avoid them.’

Costs of outsourcing – uncovering the real risks, is available free of charge to Socitm Insight subscribers, and can be downloaded from www.socitm.net.

2. Socitm report highlights outsourcing risks

The report, ‘Costs of Outsourcing – Uncovering the Real Risks’, examines the risks in detail and offers advice about how to tackle them.

“How to make outsourcing pay for client and supplier Socitm points out that although there are often good reasons for outsourcing, especially for smaller organisations unable to benefit from economies of scale or afford to change technology as regularly as their larger competitors, outsourcing a major component of an ICT service is fraught with risk……”

It goes on to say

“It also argues that when comparing the costs for any service, most elements will be more expensive over a 10-year period if outsourced. This may seem counter intuitive, but report author Martin Greenwood said: “It is a myth that outsourcing is cheaper, across most areas it is more expensive and people outsource for a range of reasons other than cost.”

Further adding

“Another risk lies with outsourcing information assets alongside technology, as the ability to exploit these is a key source of efficiency savings and even advocates of outsourcing advise against this.”

To read full article: http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2049497/socitm-report-highlights-outsourcing-risks#ixzz1LOcn7ycX

3. Coalition scales back privatisation plans over ‘excess profit making’ fears

The government has privately admitted it is scaling back its plans to privatise swaths of the public sector for fear of appearing to be in favour of private companies excessively profiting from the taxpayer.

A leaked memo of a meeting between business chiefs and the minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, says there will be “no return to the 1990s” and wholesale outsourcing. Maude is preparing a white paper on public services – delayed since February – setting out the future direction of public services, which is expected to contain plans to match private sector companies to charities and volunteer groups to run public services.

Read full article here

4. Plans to outsource public services ‘scaled back’

“The government is scaling back plans to use the private sector to deliver public services, the BBC has learned.

Leaked documents suggest ministers have decided the “wholesale outsourcing” of public services to the private sector would be politically “unpalatable”.

Ministers instead want to use more charities, social enterprises and employee-owned “mutual” organisations.

Outsourcing was meant to be a key part of the government’s drive to cut costs and reduce the UK’s budget deficit.

The note, obtained by the BBC, is marked “strictly private and confidential” and was drawn up by the CBI as a record of the meeting.

It says: “The minister’s messages were clear cut… the government is committed to transforming services, but this would not be a return to the 1990s with wholesale outsourcing to the private sector – this would be unpalatable to the present administration.

“The government was not prepared to run the political risk of fully transferring services to the private sector with the result that they could be accused of being naive or allowing excess profit making by private sector firms.”

To view full article click here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13273932

5. Leaked government documents suggest shared services are the future

Leaked documents have cast doubt on the government’s enthusiasm towards wholesale outsourcing to help it cut public sector costs and suggest that joint ventures would be a more palatable remedy to excessive government costs.

According to a BBC report, leaked documents suggest ministers view the wholesale outsourcing of public services to private companies as “unpalatable”.

To view full article click here http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/05/04/246579/Leaked-government-documents-suggest-shared-services-are-the.htm

It has been reported in the Hendon Times that there are significant problems the headline was “More than 8,000 Barnet residents hit by council tax administration errors”

“THOUSANDS of council tax forms have been sent out without vital payment details, while thousands more have been sent duplicate bills, in the latest administrative blunder to hit Barnet Council.

Read whole article here

“How could this happen to what has been previously reported as a low cost high performing service?”

Barnet council have had to undergo major change in its revenues and benefits department. A company supplying the revenues and benefits system that was used by the council was purchased by a larger distributor (Northgate). Northgate decided that they where no longer going to fund the system that the council were using. This left the council no choice but to seek an alternative.

The council went through an extensive tendering process and the company that was chosen stated that they would be able to supply a match to what was already in place. The company “Civica” who supply services to a number of councils, one of those councils being Camden, was then chosen as they had indicated that the requirements of the revenue and benefits sector would be met.

From day one since Civica taken the reins the project has been flooded with problems. Civica are required to supply the hosting, software, scanning and mail opening.

The handover of the project was on in December 2010 and the system was due to be back up beginning of February. When in fact it took a month longer than they stated it would take. This might have been due to the fact they did not upgrade their servers, which resulted in a major disruption of the service.

Mail scanning has been disastrous with documents and emails not being scanned in to the system, which has resulted in further delays.

The software has not been fully compatible with data already held we understand that Civica’s response is that those areas are an added extra and the Council will need to pay more.

The situation has been worsened as benefit claims have not converted over to the new financial year, which has left benefit assessors in a nightmare situation of having to totally reassess those claims. The benefit department has been inundated with phones calls from disgruntled members of the public regarding the fact that their benefit has not been assessed.

Barnet Council have penalised Civica for their failure to meet the contract that was set out. Revenues and Benefits staff are hard at work actively seeking work a rounds for the current problems in order to give the public the service that they require.

These problems will continue to run into the months ahead and the revenues and benefit staff are clearly trying to manage with what they have now been given. It is just another clear sign that the private sectors just do not care about the public and are only interested in money.

All the above has been identified in the Corporate Risk Register which you can view on the Council web site here

Go to Appendix 11 and scroll down to  ORG0014 – Financial

Risk: new revenues and benefits systems will not be in place with effect April 2011 to collect taxes and administer benefits.

Cause: Current supplier of Revs & Bens IT taken over by third party. Third party are desupporting the existing system with effect from January 2011 forcing all current users to source new systems.

Consequence: Go-live has been delayed on 2 occasions due to IT hosting and the required quality criteria for data conversions. Current golive mid February 2011. Level of debt and benefit administered within the affected

This is a service that has been pushed into a Future Shape/One Barnet Project for privatisation.

The options appraisal for this decision was made at Cabinet Resources Committee 2 March.

Barnet UNISON’s critique of the options appraisal made the following comments with regards Revs & Bens

“There are massive legislative changes about to be made by the current government especially in relation to all benefits, which are to be replaced by a universal benefit. Under these circumstances it is premature to include Revenue and Benefits in this project. Their inclusion gives the impression that they have been included to create a desirable contract package rather than the needs of Barnet residents.

Further, Revenue & Benefits is currently implementing a new ICT system. This service is high performing low cost. Any attempt to impose the CSO model and therefore its breakup would be a high-risk to performance and cost

The poor track record of the outsourcing of this service in London, for example, Hackney, Ealing and Southwark and nationally where this service has been returned to in-house operation. Where strategic partnerships have taken over Revenue and Benefits these have generally been high performing service before they were outsourced. In addition, government review of the benefits system could lead to this service being nationalised. This is another reason why it should be excluded from the project.”

Response from the Council to these concerns were

“Whilst these are high performing services, there is potential to reduce costs and improve performance which the options appraisal identifies can best be delivered through the procurement of a strategic partner to deliver these services. For Revenues and Benefits there are also benefits that can be realised by delivering this service closely with Customer Services”

The One Barnet programme (OBP) has three principles

·         a new relationship with citizens;

·         a one public sector approach; and

·         a relentless drive for efficiency.

Perhaps there should be fourth principle adding? 

“A relentless drive to ignore and/or discount any criticism of the OBP”

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

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

Barnet UNISON & Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) have organised a Public Meeting and have invited Professor Dexter Whitfield as the Guest Speaker.

 

The meeting takes place on Tuesday 15^th March at 7pm in the Greek Cypriot Community Centre, 2 Britannia Road, London N12 9RU.

 

Barnet Council last week passed a Budget making £54 million in cuts/savings which included cuts to frontline services and increases in fees and charges to Barnet residents.

 

Barnet Council is embarking on policy called One Barnet Programme formerly known as Future Shape and more widely referred to as ‘easycouncil’. This programme has already begun, 24 out of 25 council services have already been told they are to be privatised. Up to £4 million has been spent on consultants and other staff resources in the last three years with no discernable savings for Barnet residents. A further £9.2 million has been put aside for consultants to help deliver this mass privatisation programme.

 

Dexter has been commissioned by the Council Trade Unions to produce a series of critiques and proposals on the Councils Future Shape Programme (now rebranded One Barnet) You can view all his analysis/reports on the following link here

 

Dexter will be addressing in his speech the following:

• Costs and consequences of Barnet council policies.
• Community needs decided by multinational companies.
• The effect on jobs, terms and conditions.
• The erosion of democracy and transparency.
• Implications of the governments White Paper on public sector reform

This will be followed by a Q& A session

Dave Prentis, UNISON General Secretary addressed members at our AGM last week and said “the council that couldn’t cut more and couldn’t care less, the council that is in the vanguard of Tory ideology”.

 

More recently Professor Dexter Whitfield had an article on PFI published in the Guardian newspaper & in the Barnet Press

 

End.

 

Contact: John Burgess Barnet UNISON on 07738389569 or email: john.burgess@barnetunison.org.uk

 

Background

 

Dexter Whitfield is Director of European Services Strategy Unit (continuing the work of the Centre for Public Services founded in 1973) and is Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide.  He has carried out extensive research and policy analysis of regional/city economies and public sector provision, jobs and employment strategies, impact assessment and evaluation, marketisation and privatisation, modernisation and public management (www.european-services-strategy.org.uk).

 

He has undertaken commissioned work for a wide range of public sector organisations, local authorities and agencies and worked extensively with trade unions in the UK at branch, regional and national levels, and internationally. He has advised many tenants and community organisations on housing, planning and regeneration policies.

 

Dexter is the author of the following books:

• Global Auction of Public Assets: Public sector alternatives to the infrastructure market & Public Private Partnerships (2010);
• New Labour’s Attack on Public Services: Modernisation by Marketisation (2006),
• Public Services or Corporate Welfare: The Future of the Nation State in the Global Economy (2001),
• The Welfare State: Privatisation, Deregulation & Commercialisation (1992)
• Making it Public: Evidence and Action against Privatisation (1983).

He was one of the founding members of Community Action Magazine (1972-1995) and Public Service Action (1983-1998). He has published many articles in journals and delivered papers and advised public bodies and trade unions in Europe, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.