Appeal hearing Nash vs the One Barnet privatisation programme

From the Barnet Alliance For Public Services:

Join us for the appeal hearing to keep fighting Barnet Council’s mass-outsourcing programme: Monday and Tuesday 15 and 16 July, 9:30 for 10am start, at the High Court, The Strand.

Please support Maria Nash, who is fighting a legal battle for us all, to stop the undemocratic privatisation of Barnet by Crapita. Your council could be next! And probably will be at this rate.

For more information and to offer your support, see: http://barnetalliance.org/

The Appeal on Monday is listed before The Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Davis and Lady Justice Gloster at 10:30am in court 71.

Background

On 7 May, lawyers acting on behalf of Maria Nash lodged an appeal against the refusal to allow a judicial review of the One Barnet programme. The One Barnet programme is a widely-discredited Barnet council plan to privatise council services. Major contracts have already been handed to Capita. The refusal to allow the judicial review was made on the technical grounds that the request for a judicial review was brought out of time.

The court has issued the appeal and it has been served to Barnet Council’s lawyers, to Capita and to the other parties.

The legal team is confident that the grounds for the appeal are promising. The appeal is based on the substantial endorsement of Judge Underhill of Maria Nash’s argument that Barnet Council had failed to consult residents about a fundamental change to the way Council services are delivered and governed, under the One Barnet outsourcing programme. Maria Nash was granted legal aid for the appeal and she is now waiting for a hearing date from the Court of Appeal.

The legal team will challenge the judge’s ruling on delay, arguing that he has not followed a House of Lords ruling on what is meant by a “final decision”.

Twitter: #BarnetJR

Barnet campaign & lobby to save disability support services

via Barnet Alliance for Public Services

The Campaign Against the Destruction of Disabled Support Services was set up by Barnet residents to protest against deteriorating social care provision in the London Borough of Barnet.

At the moment, the group is focusing on the plight of severely disabled adults facing drastic changes to their social care, which Barnet Council is responsible for providing. Neither they nor their families have been consulted about these changes which will have a great impact on their lives.

Lobby Your Choice Barnet Board, Wednesday, 29 May 2013
Barnet residents and members of CADDSS will be lobbying the Your Choice Barnet Board meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 6 pm, in Committee Room 2, 1st Floor, Barnet House, 1255 High Road, Whetstone, London N20 0EJ. We will ask why service users and their families have not been consulted about the changes the Board is proposing.

Background information
Your choice Barnet was set up by Barnet Council as part of the One Barnet Programme of outsourcing to provide services for adults with disabilities. It is failing financially and its proposed solution is to restructure services and reduce the number and skill level of staff.

These changes mean people who need care will have the number of days they can attend day centres reduced. Care will be provided by under skilled workers. There will be inadequate incontinence care at night in residential care units. There will be fewer opportunities for activities in a safe environment.

People needing care will be put at risk of social isolation and damage to their health and well-being. Their carers will suffer from increased stress.

JOIN US on the lobby of Your Choice Barnet board, Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 5:30 pm outside Barnet House 1255 High Road N20, 6 pm in Committee Room 2, 1st Floor, Barnet House, 1255 High Road, Whetstone, London N20 0EJ.

Petition to bring services back in house
CADDSS is urging people to sign the petition demanding that Your Choice Barnet services are brought back in house.

Vigil in support of bedroom tax claimants

A vigil will be held tomorrow morning (Wednesday 15 May 9.30am) outside the Royal Courts of Justice in support of claimants taking a challenge against the Government’s ‘Bedroom Tax’ called by Camden United for Benefit Justice, Disabled People Against Cuts, Single Mothers’ Self-Defence, Taxpayers Against Poverty, and WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities).

The ten claims, made by a range of people affected by the Bedroom Tax which came into force from 1st April this year, will be heard together over three days starting on Wednesday 15 May.

Like two thirds of the 660,000 people affected by the bedroom tax nationally, claimants Jacqueline Carmichael and Richard Rourke are disabled people.

Jacqueline who has spina bifida is not able to share a bed with her husband and as there is not enough space in her bedroom for a second bed he sleeps in a second bedroom. The couple have been awarded a Discretionary Housing Payment to cover the 14% under-occupation penalty on their housing benefit that came in from 1st April but this payment will only last 6 months and they do not know how they will meet their rent when it ends.

Richard is a wheelchair user whose disabled stepdaughter lives in university halls of residence during term time. He uses his third bedroom to store equipment including a hoist, power chair and shower seat. He has had his housing benefit reduced by 25%, on the basis that he is under-occupying by two bedrooms but there are no suitably adapted properties for him to move to in either the social rented or the private sector.

The challenge comes less than a week after the Sunday People told the story of how disabled mother Stephanie Bottrill tragically took her own life after being ordered to pay an extra £20 per week under the government’s vicious bedroom tax.

Jamal Rosenberg from Disabled People Against Cuts said, “This unfair, unjust policy does more than affect disabled people, it targets them. The government knows that if everyone caught by this policy tried to move tomorrow they couldn’t because there aren’t enough smaller properties available and there aren’t adapted properties accessible to disabled people. To plough on in the knowledge of the destruction this policy will cause to lives and communities is heartless. We support the claimants taking the legal challenge but it is for all of us to fight back and say, this is not acceptable.”

For more information about the hearing:

http://wearespartacus.org.uk/bedroom-tax-hearing-starts-15-may/

http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2013/March-2013/Government-lose-Bedroom-Tax-challenge-decision

How the bedroom tax unfolds – latest article

Latest article with people in Liverpool is here:
“We note from our records that you have failed to make any payments towards the bedroom tax. It is important that you contact us immediately to make payment arrangements. We have tried to visit you today to discuss this with you in more detail and to provide you with some options to consider. Please contact us to discuss the impact of the bedroom tax on your household or to arrange a suitable appointment.”

More here.

 

Terminal cruelty of the political class: report from Garston bedroom tax meeting

To Garston, now, where South Liverpool Combat The Bedroom Tax has organised a tenants’ meeting in the small hall of the Methodist church hall on Banks Street. There is a big turnout of local tenants, as there generally has been at these meetings – probably about 50 people on a freezing night for this first Garston meeting which was advertised mostly with leaflets and posters.

Once everyone’s in, there’s standing room only at the back. Two organisers, Jane Calveley and Adrian Gibbons, sit up front to answer questions and to explain how people in Dingle and Bootle are organising against the tax in their areas. The idea is for people for people to take leaflets away and get their groups going themselves, free of top-down structures and/or nefarious external political opportunists. Preserving that part of the scene could be a challenge in itself now that Labour is thrashing around trying to find the centre of it. I do sometimes wonder if there’ll be much left by the end of that.

Most of the people at this meeting are older – probably in their 40s, 50s and 60s. There are long-term tenants: people say they’ve been 30 years in a house, or 20 years, or “I’ve lived in the same house all my life” – statements like that. This post is a basic report of the sorts of questions that people asked and the topics the meeting canvassed. Some of the questions will appear incomplete: the bedroom tax is an inexact perversion and people had obviously heard things, or bits of information and were trying to find out the full story with their questions. I talked to a number of people at this meeting and at Monday’s one at St Bride’s as well and will write a more detailed piece soon.

Suffice to say for now that the bedroom tax is one of the most inhuman, backward-looking policies I’ve yet heard proposed and anyone who thinks it has merit in any form ought to be imprisoned permanently. They’re taunting people with homelessness, for god’s sake. That’s all this is. It is news to nobody that this “policy” will largely be undeliverable – you’ll see from this report that people are already being told smaller homes are not available and tenants, who are often already struggling financially, just won’t have the money to pay for “spare” rooms. That became very obvious as the evening rolled on. The tax does nothing to address homelessness, or housing shortages. It is there purely to inspire loathing of tenants and terror in tenants themselves. Which is why people are braving the rain and the cold to turn out to these meetings – meetings that have been growing across Liverpool in the last month or so, I might add. More attention should be paid to them.

I’m withholding names for now.

———–

The meeting begins with an older man at the back asking the question that people have asked at all the meetings and protests I’ve attended to date: “Why aren’t the (Liverpool city) councillors here now?” he says. “Where’s the councillors now?” There is plenty of murmuring when he puts that one out. There’s a message is coming through loud and clear here and Labour councillors want to wake up to it. Babblings from recently-annointed anti-bedroom tax warrior Liam Byrne don’t appear to be doing much to reassure people who are actually going through all this. They want to know where people are now.

Calveley knows where the councillors where, as do a number of us who have spent the afternoon at a protest outside Liverpool Town Hall. “They’re passing the council budget cuts in the town hall,” she says. “That’s where we’ve been before we come here.”

“There’s not one of them here,” the elderly man says angrily.

There’s a big meeting now where they’re passing all the cuts,” Calveley says grimly.  Around the room, people shake their heads at that news. Nobody is impressed. It is telling, to say the very least, that councillors would still rather be seen at a meeting where they’re cutting services than at a meeting where they could be saving them.

We move on.

“The councils and the housing associations should work with tenants groups, trade unions and all the bedroom tax campaigns that are springing up all over the country to build more homes,” Calveley says. “I’m actually talking council housing. Now, I’m going to open it up to the meeting.”

“I applied for a one bedroom house and I was told there is no one bedroom houses, or flats, in the whole of Liverpool,” says an older woman who is sitting just behind me. “So, if I want to get to a smaller property, I’d have to go out of Liverpool. But all my family live in Liverpool – so where would that leave me? I don’t drive – so where would that leave people like me?

Another woman asks if it is true that there is a cap on housing benefit for pensioners who are on pension credit if they “went private to a one bedroom flat….so you’ve had to spend your pension money to make that up…is that right?”

A man who says he is 56, unemployed and living in the three-bedroom flat that he’s lived in all his life asks straight out: “What happens if you can’t afford it [the tax]?”

“That’s why people have to fight it,” a woman says, “because people can’t afford it. They can’t afford it, literally.”

“Can you get your house taken from you?” the man asks. Everyone reacts to this: there’s shuffling and murmuring as soon as he says it.

“They can’t just kick you out,” says a woman who has come from the Dingle group to share information at this meeting. “They have to go through a process.”

The first man – the one who’d asked where councillors were – asks if there is a reason why housing associations shouldn’t pick up the bill. “You pay rent,” he says furiously. “It’s not even your flat, or your house. It’s their house – so why not let them pay [the shortfall between rent and the tax]?”

“They’re not going to pay,” an elderly woman at the back of the room says.

“Well, why not?” the man asks. “You’ve got to stand up for this stuff.”

“They won’t pay it,” says the woman from the Dingle group. “I asked them. I said – you can refuse to implement it. What they’re saying is that they know that you are poverty-stricken, but they still want their money.”

The woman who said she’d been she’d have to leave Liverpool to find a small flat asks how much money Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson earns. Various figures are suggested. I find these myself and the figures people talk about are close to those. All get a hostile reaction.

Another man at the back of the room says that he’d been to see Citizens’ Advice about the tax a couple of weeks ago. “The lad behind the counter was telling me like – it’s not just you. There are thousands like you.”

A woman asks a question about legal aid. She’s concerned that people’s chances of fighting the tax and eviction through the courts might be affected by cuts to legal aid funding. “You know how legal aid is being cut – so what happens to people wishing to fight it in the courts? Like this lady said before – she is prepared to move, but they can’t give her [a one-bedroom house in Liverpool]. Surely that makes it their problem, not hers? If this went to court, what representation would this lady get? With legal aid?”

“The people of Liverpool fought against the poll tax,”says the older man at the back. “If we can do that, we can do this. It’s only the Tories who would think of this, though. Next it will be – you’ve got too many windows.”

Bedroom size is discussed in detail, as it has been around the country. A number of people ask how big a room must be for classification as a bedroom. The figure everyone discusses is 70 square feet – “so one thing everybody can do really practically is measure your bedrooms,” people say.

“So, if it’s a boxroom – they can’t charge bedroom tax on a boxroom?”

“You need to measure it.”

“One of the things that we’ve been talking about in Dingle is getting letters made up to send back to people to say – you can say this isn’t a spare bedroom. It isn’t big enough,” the woman from the Dingle group says. (This is, just by the way, one of the aspects of the whole wreck that I find most upsetting: the thought of all these people – a lot of them older, as I say – being put in a position where they must grovel round on all fours with tape-measures for the pleasure of rich Tories. There’s something about that image which doesn’t sit well with me at all).

There is a lot of concern raised about getting into debt, or more debt: “Can they do like they do on the council tax – when they send you letters and you’re paying them money and it’s going up and up and up (as court costs and fines are added)?” one woman asks. “If you have that and the tax on top? Does it build up if you’re waiting for appeal?”

An older woman asks if people are allowed to take in lodgers now – there is confusion about the rules for subletting. “Also, if you were to go into private housing, what is the most benefit that they will pay you?”

A man asks if benefits will be docked if bedroom tax payments can’t be met: “you know with the council tax, they can take the money from your benefits. Could this happen with the housing one?”

It is appalling stuff and it goes on and on. There’s not enough time for everyone’s questions.

It becomes very clear that people here are in an impossible situation with the tax. After the meeting, I speak at length with the 56-year-old man who is out of work and on the brink of a battle to stay in the house he grew up in. He says that the house has three rooms, but one has never been used as a bedroom, because it is too small. He and his mother only ever used it for storage.

“The way I look at it – because of the fact that you claim housing benefit, you get a slap in the face for it. I sign on every two weeks. It’s not easy to find work. I get about £130 a fortnight and I think the bedroom tax will cost about £40 a fortnight – that has to come out of jobseekers. I said to them – this is going to be hard like. I find it hard at the moment to pay for the food. I haven’t got that 40 quid.”

Anyway.

How many bedrooms have MPs’ flipped houses got on average?

Ealing council, austerity and people with learning disabilities

Update 15 February 2013:

Utter chaos last night as Ealing’s overview and scrutiny committee considered the cabinet’s 22 January decision to close two important services for people with learning difficulties – the Learning Curve training-to-employment service and the Stirling Road daycentre. I haven’t seen such a shambles for a while, which is saying something in this cuts environment.

There was outrage as the chair tried to restrict a presentation by speakers from the Power Group – a group made up of people with learning difficulties who the council is specifically supposed to negotiate with – to three minutes. (By startling contrast, the chair later told members of the public off for not giving director of adult services Stephen Day adequate chance to speak when he was rattling on about the “savings” these closures will purportedly achieve).

In the end, people from the Power Group got five minutes or so to state their concerns about the closures and the shoddy manner in which they’d been “consulted” about the council’s plans, before they were hurried off stage. That was as repulsive as anything I’ve seen. Everyone should be entitled to speak and if people need a bit longer, they should get that. Everyone who has something to say should have the chance to say it.

People were trying to say that they didn’t approve of the closure decision, didn’t feel they’d been given anything like enough time to consider it (“we were told about it, but we weren’t told about it until it was too late” said one speaker), were worried about the overwhelmingly negative response to the closures from people who use the services and their families, and felt the council had often failed to provide the large-print and illustrated explanatory literature that some people require. They should have been given an hour to speak if they’d wanted it. That would certainly have beat hearing from Stephen Day ad infinitum. The whole thing was an absolute wreck.

Unions revealed that people at Learning Curve and Stirling Road and their families had been given even less notice and time to consider the closures than staff – about 25 days, it was said. There were gasps as it became clear that the council had yet to formally needs-assess people who attended Learning Curve to confirm the personal budgets they’ll be entitled to – and horror as speakers confirmed that up to 100 people who attend Learning Curve won’t be entitled to paid support or services at all.

As I note in the post below this update, the council claims in cabinet papers that after closure, it will “provide individual budgets for all eligible customers. People will be able to choose either a council-managed or cash-budget option and will be offered professional guidance and advice to develop their support plans, and arrange their services.” The very big problem with this is that a lot of people won’t meet the council’s criteria for “eligible customers.” According to the council’s own cabinet reports (page 3, point 2.6.5), at least 96 of the 144 people at Learning Curve won’t be eligible. Some live out of the borough and will need to apply to their own local boroughs for support. Others who live in the borough won’t be eligible, because their needs won’t be considered serious enough. This is crucial. Many people who attend Learning Curve have, or will be, placed in the Moderate or Low needs categories when the council assesses them against Fair Access to Care criteria – the standards councils use to determine eligibility for funding for care and support services. Ealing council – like so many others in this harsh funding environment – no longer funds people in the Moderate or Low needs bands.

Council officers said they could push through all assessments by about the middle of year. A disability assessments officer stood up to say that was rubbish – that the assessment process was too complex and extensive for that and that she knew at least one person who’d been waiting for an assessment for two years. Some expert or other was trucked out to inform everyone that the days of “institutional”-type facilities like daycentres were behind us. This is the usual “this isn’t a cut – it’s an advance in social ideology” line that councils inevitably try and run at these things. It’s generally rubbish.

For one thing, as one parent whose son has completed two computer-skills certificates there said, Learning Curve is a training-to-work service – it aims to help people acquire skills that will lead to employment. She was very sure that Learning Curve was not an “institution.” She saw it as the service that might just help her 28-year-old son into a job, which is something she desperately wants for him.

For another thing, not everyone will be entitled to the personal budgets that the council keeps trying to assure everyone will release people from “institutions” like daycentres and allow them to “purchase” replacement services. Saying that these cuts are all about embracing the future is disingenous in the extreme. People won’t be “freed” from an “institution” when Learning Curve closes. They’ll be left standing on the side of the road with stuff-all. As we’ve already seen, by the council’s own admission, at least 96 of the 144 people at Learning Curve won’t be eligible for financial support. There was also a great deal of debate about the purchasing power of personal budgets – I’ll be posting more on this, but it was said last night that personal budgets weren’t substantial enough to allow people to buy equivalent services from the private and third sectors.

So. It was rowdy, it was angry and it was a complete bloody shambles. Council leader Julian Bell turned up to say a few words (largely some cowardly rot about having delegated responsibility for the closure to officers) and was given very short shrift. His “central government cuts are forcing our hand” line went down like a cup of the cold proverbial. As well it might. People are sick of it.

—————–

Update Wedneday 23 January: in front of a full gallery last night and with a lot of verbal handwringing, if you can have such a thing – “it’s with a heavy heart that we make this decision,” etc – the cabinet voted for the closures. People who use the centres and their families were furious. The decision now goes to Overview and Scrutiny in February. I spoke to the chair of that committee briefly after last night’s meeting and he seemed worried. Parents are complaining about the council’s consultation processes with people with learning difficulties – they feel the consultation was rushed, not adequately geared towards people with learning difficulties and that feedback from representative groups was ignored. More on this soon.

————-

Original post:

This is the first in a series of posts I’m planning on Ealing council’s plans to close a training organisation and a daycentre for people with learning disabilities. The aim is to broaden this out into wider reporting about the consulting and treatment of people with learning disabilities as further council cuts are made and as the government continues with the ESA work capability assessment and brings in the overall benefit cap, the bedroom tax, council tax benefit cuts, DLA to PIP testing and universal credit. In the past few months, a number of people with learning disabilities and parents and carers have been in touch to talk about their growing concerns.

On Tuesday 22 January (see meeting item 7 here), Ealing council’s cabinet is due to make a decision that will radically affect the lives of a group of adults with learning disabilities, and their families and carers.

The decision will be to agree to close two organisations long used by people with learning disabilities: the Learning Curve training-for-employment service and the Stirling Road daycentre.

Learning Curve is, in the council’s definition – “a fully accredited training centre, which provides training in basic skills, preparation for work, job seeking skills, office practice and retail and information technology… it also supports disabled adults in work and can help find work experience placements…its aim is to help people obtain the skills needed to get into work.“

Stirling Road “provides a wide range of services… sport and leisure, health promotion, community based projects, work-based training and travel assistance. The service is provided to promote and support people to become more independent and access their community through community-based projects.”

It won’t for much longer, though – unless people can kick up enough rough to stall the juggernaut.

They’re certainly trying: I’ve attended several protests in the last month and spoken to centre attendees and parents who are desperate to keep the two organisations open.

“There’s nothing else like it. I didn’t have to explain anything to them – the staff understood his needs,” said the mother of a young man who has earned computer skills certificates at Learning Curve and wants to work towards paid employment if he can find it (I’ll be posting more interviews and feedback from people involved as things unfold).

Continue reading

Capita wins at Barnet council: the private sector wags the dog

Many people will know that for several years, Barnet council has been pursuing a deeply unpopular plan – called One Barnet – to outsource swathes of council services. Despite monumental opposition from residents, five legendary local bloggers, an extremely motivated and informed union branch secretary and council staff and union members, the council has decided to go ahead with its mass-privatising of council services. There are two contracts up for grabs in the first instance: one worth £275m to take over development and regulatory services and one worth a whopping £750m for a support and customer services “organisation”.

Today, Barnet council told staff that Capita had been confirmed as the preferred bidder for the £750m project. Staff heard more about the impact that this will have on their jobs and the services they provide this afternoon.

Barnet Unison explains in this press release:

“Today approximately 520 Barnet Council staff have been told in a series of briefings that Capita is to be their new employer.

From figures released in the presentations today, approximately 57% of staff will face redundancy as local jobs are exported to Belfast, Blackburn, Bromley, Carlisle, Darwen, Sheffield, Banstead, Swindon, Southampton.

For the last four years, UNISON has warned of the danger of jobs being exported out of Barnet. Leading councillors and senior officers have either played down this risk, or discounted it as irrelevant.

John Burgess, branch secretary said: “It is a dark day in the history of Barnet council. Staff and residents will remember this date as the day the council carried on marching over the cliff ignoring the stark warnings of residents and other key stakeholders. The implications for our members are awful.

I thought the morale of the workforce had already hit rock bottom. I believe this news will drag it down deeper and it will have an impact on other council staff. I also fear for the impact on future quality of services to Barnet residents. I really hope councillors will think again about the implications of what they are proposing and the risks of ignoring a growing dissenting community voice emerging from a resilient committed community campaign. But, it isn’t over yet, there is an alternative way to delivering public services and our campaign is still very alive and focused. Watch this space.”

***** Ends *****

Background

Barnet Council is implementing a policy known as the One Barnet Programme, sometimes referred to as the ‘Commissioning Council’. This mass privatisation policy is designed for the Council to divest itself of responsibility to deliver services to its residents.

Continue reading

Barnet council’s mass outsourcing plan and the perils of privatisation

Big, bad privatisation plans and failed private-public projects have caused near-meltdowns at Cornwall  and Somerset councils in recent times – but that hasn’t stopped Tory Barnet council from storming towards oblivion with a plan called One Barnet – a deeply unpopular proposal to outsource swathes of council services which has brought the council to its knees before it has even begun. With just a few weeks left before the first major One Barnet contract is decided, this post looks at the controversy and a bit of Barnet council’s outsourcing history.

Photo: a protestor at a march and rally for Fremantle careworkers, 2007 (By @skinnyvoice)

I first became aware of the problems faced by people who were on the rough end of Barnet council’s privatisation deals in 2007.

That was when I started to spend Wednesday evenings at union shop meetings held by Barnet careworkers whose lives had been wrecked by outsourcing.

The careworkers were a group of low-paid staff (mostly women) who were in the middle of a bitter industrial dispute with the Fremantle Trust (a partner of Catalyst Housing) – the so-called not-for-profit organisation to which Barnet council had outsourced care for elderly people.

Earlier that year, the Trust had slaughtered the careworkers’ salaries and terms of employment. Their wages and working conditions had (supposedly) been protected when the council privatised care and TUPE-transferred staff to their new, outsourced employer – “they said it was all going to be super duper and we were going to be fine,” careworker Carmel Reynolds told me in 2007 – but in December 2006, the Trust made its move.

Staff were presented with a harsh new employment contract and told that anyone who refused to sign it by April 2007 would be sacked. With the new contract, the Trust cut careworkers’ annual leave allowances and reduced their sick leave to a statutory minimum. Worst of all was the abolishing of the weekend enhancement payments that many careworkers relied on to make up a reasonable wage. Barnet Unison estimated that after those cuts, some careworkers lost 30% of their pay.

When they complained, staff were told by management that they could make up their lost pay by working extra shifts. ‘I said [to management] – how do you expect us to be able to cope [with these cuts]? What [management] said is that you have to do extra hours to make up your pay. But what about the quality of our daily life?” said careworker Lango Gamanga in 2007.

The truly appalling part of all this, though – the part should not be forgotten in light of Barnet’s current outsourcing quest – was the discovery, late in 2007, that the cuts to the careworkers’ salaries and conditions had very likely been for nothing.

In a 6 December 2007 cabinet resources committee report, the council admitted that the “high profile” change (by which, presumably, it meant the much-publicised industrial dispute over the new contract) had not helped Catalyst blunt financial losses and that those losses presented “an ongoing and increasing budget risk to the council.” Catalyst lodged a claim for further funds from the council – and was ultimately awarded £8m in arbitration. So. The moral of this tale is that outsourcing often goes arse-over for everyone involved, except those selling it. Don’t take my word for it – here’s a list of outsourcing catastrophes for you to weep over. The point in this post is that the Fremantle-Catalyst endeavour was a Barnet council debacle to beat the band.

One Barnet

Unfortunately, that experience has not deterred the council from pursuing new and even bigger potential outsourcing disasters.

As we speak, the council nears a decision on the now-infamous (even before it is launched – not a good sign) One Barnet project – an amazingly unpopular plan to pay private companies the best part of £1bn to provide a mass of council services. There’s £275m up for grabs for development and regulatory services and a whopping £750m for a new, if ill-defined, support and customer services “organisation” from which services like council estates, finance, human resources, IT and revenues and benefits will, allegedly,  spring. In the face of monumental opposition from residents, five legendary local bloggers, an extremely motivated and informed union branch secretary and council staff and union members, the council will, on December 6, decide which (very lucky) private company will win the £750m contract. The second contract will be awarded in January.

The scale of the proposed private sector entanglement terrifies people – recent scandals like the G4S Olympic security failure demonstrated a) how spectacularly private companies can fail to meet obligations and b) that in the end, you need the public sector to come in and clean up the crap.

And One Barnet could be a very big turd indeed. Estimates are that 70% of the council’s services could be tied up in ten-year contracts with the private sector if One Barnet gets the green light. Unison expects hundreds of job losses as a result of outsourcing and “efficiency savings” – the sort of numbers that can only have a negative impact on services.

Pointed questions have also been asked about Barnet’s ability to keep a grip on all or even some of its relationships and contracts with private companies. I’ve already talked about the Fremantle-Catalyst wreck. Last year, there was another scandal, when Barnet bloggers revealed that the council had spent more more than £1m to hire a private security firm company called MetPro. The council engaged the firm without putting the contract out to tender, or running basic security and financial checks. I had the pleasure of that firm myself at a very feisty (ie full of pissed-off locals being denied the right to attend the meeting by overzealous private security guards) 2011 Barnet council budget cuts meeting. Security guards confiscated our laptops and cameras, bullied people who wanted to sit in on the public council meeting and overrode police decisions to let members of the public into chambers.

So.

There are just a few weeks left before Barnet council decides on that first major One Barnet contract. The council could hardly be in worse shape for it. Chief Executive Nick Walkley resigned at the beginning of October. Jury’s out on that one – depending who you talk to, that was either a great career move, or a running jump off the sinking ship (the two probably go hand in hand). A week or so ago, council leader Richard Cornelius faced a no-confidence vote.  Then controversial (many other words work as well) councillor Brian Coleman publicly slammed One Barnet as an “officer-driven juggernaut” and a turkey which needed to see Christmas. Only this week, a disabled woman has started legal proceedings against the council, saying that One Barnet does not give due regard to the needs of disabled people. Now, the fabulous Mr Mustard has published the impressive (as in size) One Barnet risk register.

And if you think Cornelius has lost control now – just wait until he signs off on this thing. There won’t be many people looking to make it work.

Why not to privatise…

Residents in Barnet have made this brilliant short animation to explain the risks associated with Barnet council’s plans to go ahead with its massive, and massively unpopular, one-billion pound outsourcing deal.

As many people will know, Barnet residents, bloggers and unions have been fighting the council’s plans to mass privatise council services (a plan called One Barnet). Already, they’ve won a fight to keep the council’s waste and recycling services in house.

Meeting tonight – a “Question Time” in Barnet on the One Barnet outsourcing programme
Tonight (Thursday 8 November at 7pm at the Greek Cypriot Centre, Britannia Road, London N12 9RU) Barnet residents will hold a ‘Question Time’ debate about the proposed One Barnet programme. On the panel will be Barnet resident and chair, Barbara Jacobson, Barnet Conservative Council Leader, Richard Cornelius, Labour Leader, Alison Moore, Lib Dem Leader Jack Cohen and Andy Mudd from the Association for Public Service Excellence.

Many people will know that it’s all hit the fan in a very big way over that mass-outsourcing deal. Council CE Nick Walkley recently resigned – only a couple of months before the mass-privatisation decision was due to be made. Everyone else is fighting – so this evening’s meeting could be a belter.

Top job done there by residents, bloggers and union members who have simply refused to accept that the private sector is entitled to their money and services. Hope they win.