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.

I Daniel Blake Viewing with Ken Loach Q&A

Library reduction programme hits students at vital exam period

In its wisdom Barnet Council is downsizing most of Barnet's libraries. This will have  a massive impact for most residents on going. However, the programme of works to eviscerate the libraries is taking place during the key GCSE and A level period. No doubt some bod from Capita worked out how quickly they could implement the changes but, as usual, I don't think anyone bothered to check whether this made sense to users. As a result of both the downgrade works and the introduction of the Partnership Libraries, which will not operate unstaffed opening, it means that there are only three of Barnet's 14 libraries that are open throughout the exam period.

I have said before that Barnet's Conservative Councillors are out of touch with the reality of library usage. They think that children all have their own bedroom, a nice desk or dining room table to study at or as Cllr Davey mentioned at a recent meeting that they could go and study at their local Starbucks or Costa. The reality is that a significant number of children in the borough share bedrooms, have little or no study space and are dependent on libraries to carry out their revision. Children studying for their GCSE and A Levels study in libraries because they are quiet, they have tables where they can lay out their revision notes and they aren't obliged to pay £2.50+ for a cup of coffee each time they visit.  I speak as both a parent and someone who has spoken with children in East Barnet, currently forced to go up to Chipping Barnet library to study because East Barnet Library is closed for works.

To me, it seems like common sense to keep all libraries open during the exam period, but as is frequently the case, common sense is a scarce commodity in Barnet.

Is this evidence of Barnet's cuts to community based adult social care?

I like to explore the Barnet Council Open Data web portal. Often it is a source of interesting data which deserves a wider audience like how many senior council are paid more than an MP (and  the Prime Minister).

However, a recent data set (which you can see here) showed the number of service users in receipt of adult social care.  With all the current talk about the social care crisis, I had expected the numbers of service users to have grown steadily over the period which starts in the financial year 2008/09. Indeed it did grow until the year 2012/13 since which time it as declined so that the number of service users in receipt of social care is now lower than it was in 2008/09. I have summarised the data in a table below and in a graph but the key fall appears to be in the provision of community based services.

Given that I cannot believe that demand for community based adult social care has declined, is this evidence that cuts to the service provision are already taking place and does this mean potential service users are missing out on the care they really need?

Maybe the figures are faulty; maybe I have misinterpreted them; but to me it looks like community based care is being cut. I hope someone from Barnet Council can shed some light on this.

Capita get massive £45 million Christmas present from Barnet Council

I did wonder why the Barnet Council monthly expenditure figures weren't posted yesterday. Today I understand why. In December Capita were paid a staggering £45 million. Yes £45 million split £39 million on the CSG contract and £6 million on the Re contract. So far this financial year that brings the total payments to Capita to £96.5 million and there are still three months to go of this financial year.

I attended the evidence gathering session for the review of the Capita CSG contract back in July 2016, the only opportunity for the public to have any input to the review process. Six months later we get a report that says everything is coming up roses with this contract. Well Councillors, if you think that shelling out £96.5 million in just 9 months is acceptable then you clearly have lost touch with reality.

I understand that at last night's Council meeting Cllr Geof Cooke asked why the ruling group insisted on holding the review of the Re contract in secret. Apparently he was told by Cllr Finn it wasn't in secret, it was in private. I have absolutely no confidence in the working group doing anything other than giving the Re contract another clean bill of health.  Perhaps if these figures had been released before the meeting yesterday, the response to Cllr Cooke's question might had drawn greater criticism - or maybe not.

I call on all the ruling group Councillors especially Cllrs Finn and Zinkin who site on the working group to reconsider holding the Re contract review meetings in public, not in private, to explain why we are paying so much to Capita and to allow residents to understand what Councillors really feel about this contract.

51 for 8 - not the cricket score but Capita's payments from Barnet

Barnet Supplier payments have been published early this month because of Christmas so we can have a festive peep at how much suppliers have been paid between April and November. So far this year Capita/Re have been paid £51.5 million in 8 months with a year end target looking like £76 million - so where are the savings?

The contract for agency and interim staff (Comensura) continues to grow. In October it looked like they were getting costs under control but in November the costs were just a shade under £2 million for the month so still on course for a full year spend of £20 million.

This remains nothing short of a disgrace despite all of Barnet's protestations. While two thirds of the agency spend is on Adults and Children's Family services, one third, or around £700,000 in just one month was spent by the Commissioning and Streetscene departments. What I can't understand is why Capita who the Council pays to run the HR department haven't got to grips with this problem and come up with some more innovative solutions to address the recruitment problems that necessitate so many interim and agency staff.

Barnet are currently undertaking a budget consultation exercise for next year's budget. Unfortunately the council want to cut key services like our libraries, meals on wheels and children's services to meet the £22.2 million budget gap next year but seem unwilling to get to grips with this interim and agency staff bill which is running out of control at £20 million a year. I would also say that much of this budget shortfall is of Barnet's making. They have frozen Council tax since 2010 and actually cut council tax in 2014, weeks before the election. If they had been sensible and taken modest council tax rises of 1.99% each year then we wouldn't have this shortfall.

Barnet continues to be a council driven by political dogma rather than common sense and that is to everyone's regret.