Is anyone monitoring Capita?

Barnet's supplier payments for February have been published and as usual I have gone through them in some detail. One set of payments jumped out of the spreadsheet which was to Capita. There were 14 payments and two small credits amounting to a total of  £1,321,887.55 which were designated as "CSG Services Contract Payment".

So what you may say? Well, on 15 November 2016 Councillors agreed to make an advance payment to Capita of £26.9 million to cover CSG contract payments for 2017 and this formed part of the £39 million paid to Capita on the CSG contract in December. This was supposed to generate a saving of £500,000 which is due to be paid on 3 April (based on a response to a specific question I asked in February).

So we have paid £26.9 million up front, we haven't had the savings payment yet but nevertheless we still paid Capita another £1.32 million. To my mind this is unacceptable. No further payments should have been made to Capita on the CSG contract until the entire £26.9m advance payment has been exhausted. It also rubs salt into the wound that we still haven't been credited the £500,000 saving yet.

I would also point out that within the Re contract payments, which are also made to Capita, there is a payment classified as "CSG Services Contract Payment" for £167,500. This should have either been included under the Capita payments or has been incorrectly labelled. Either way it is poor practice.

What I want to know is who is monitoring these payments (other than me) and why are these payments being made? Maybe one of the many readers within Capita or Barnet Council who visit my blog daily would care to give me an explanation.

So far Barnet have paid Capita £273 million on the two contracts. That is £102 million more than the contracted value yet everyone maintains these contracts are saving money. I can't find those savings!

The other long running sore is the contract for interim and agency staff with Comensura. In February Comensura billed £1.68 million bringing the year to date total to £18.3 million with a month still to go and an estimated year end cost of a shade under £20 million. That equates to £400,000 a week from which 4 separate organisations take a commission.

  Barnet have now conceded they can't run the council without all these agency staff as was disclosed during the budget setting meeting. Cllr Jack Cohen had put forward an alternative budget which included significant cuts to agency staff but had those savings capped by Council Officers at just £129,500 for the entire year or just 0.6% of the annual cost as he was told the council couldn't operate without those staff. That does not strike me as an efficient organisation.

Is 43p a week too much to ask?

In Barnet we are facing a 3% council tax increase specifically for social care which, as we all know, is in crisis. However, the council had the opportunity to increase the council tax by a further 1.99% to cover all the other services provided by the council such as street cleaning, refuse collection, libraries and children's services. The council have put forward a budget for 2017/18 which shows a shortfall of just under £20 million and that takes into account the 3% social care precept. To balance the budget the council are using reserves, increasing charges and making cuts to services.

As I am sure many people are aware, adult social care and children's services make up the majority of council costs. Whether local tax payers should be paying for what many see as a national problem is a matter of debate but in Barnet we have the highest number of residential/nursing homes of any London borough reflecting the borough's mature resident profile and that drives demand for social care.

Since 2010 Barnet Council have frozen council tax and in 2014 they cut the council tax just before the last election. In the early years there was money from central government to hold down council tax rises which Barnet took but they failed to grasp freezing council tax in one year means that rise is lost every year for ever.

At a recent Council Committee meeting I asked the council the cost of a freeze to council tax  this year over the next 10 years. In fact they calculated it incorrectly at £31 million (its actually just under £34 million) but it signifies the impact of a single year of council tax freeze. When you look at the impact over 7 years the difference is significant.

Some people, including Cllr Cornelius, may argue that council tax is a regressive tax but there is banding by property value and there are also approximately 30,000 households that receive some form of Council Tax discount or exemption.

Even setting aside the growing demand for adult social care, inflation alone adds over £4 million a year to costs and includes, for example, the automatic inflation clauses included in the Capita contract.

If the council had increased council tax this year by the 1.99% allowed by government (in addition to the 3% social care precept) it would have cost the average Band D household the princely sum of 43p a week. It wouldn't have stopped all of the cuts but if the council had taken modest increases of 1.99% each year since 2010, then there wouldn't be a £20 million shortfall this year.

One question I asked the committee was, "Do the council think residents would prefer cuts or a 43p a week increase?" to which Richard Cornelius said that was a political decision and that is undoubtedly true. I speak to many residents who would prefer modest increases so long as it is spent on frontline service but they are never asked that question. However, in Barnet, the council are happy to spent an extra £800,000 on additional PR staff. They are prepared to spend £400,000 a week on interim and agency staff.  They are prepared to pay Capita millions for 'special project' consultancy work. They are prepare to spend £360,000 a year on both a Chief Executive Office AND a Chief Operating Officer in a commissioning council where many of the services are outsourced.

In 14 months time we have another council election. I just hope the electorate see through this shortsighted strategy which damages council services in both the short term and the long term but then again some people my just read the headlines of council tax freeze and not give a damn about how that affects services.