No Policy No Resources - a Council in Denial

"No we haven't agreed a lease termination on Barnet House yet". "No we don't know the scale of abortive costs"...on the new Thameslink station that Government may claw back. "It's not just about the money"... when talking about why it's difficult to recruit and retain care staff on the minimum wage of £7.83/hr. These are just a few of the comments that came out under questioning at the recent Policy & Resources committee meeting. I had asked 21 questions and Barbara Jacobson, a local resident and assiduous scrutineer of Barnet's finances had asked 14 questions. You can read the questions and non answers (because Barnet never give you a straight answer) here.

I had several major concerns linked to Brexit and which are also linked to council funding. The first was about the construction of new homes. Barnet have been receiving around £10 million a year from central government in the form of new homes bonus. Barnet are forecasting that we will receive £54 million over the next 5 years and are critical in order to meet the budget. I raised the concern London’s construction sector has an ageing workforce that is heavily reliant on migrant labour. EU nationals make up 30 per cent of the 300,000-strong workforce, while just half are UK-born. Of the UK-born workers in the capital, 38,500 (12 per cent) are set to retire in the next 5-10 years. Yet it is estimated that 60,000 more construction workers are needed in London and the South East in 2017 to keep up with demand. There have also been articles documenting the slow down in the construction market in London; just one of the articles about it you can read here. As such I was concerned that if the number of new houses built in Barnet failed to meet the threshold to trigger the New Homes Bonus, this could have significant financial impact on Barnet. What reinforced my concern was that Barnet set a target of 3,100 new homes to be built in 2018/19 which would more than meet the New Homes Bonus threshold. However, in the first 3 quarters of 2018/19 only 553 had been completed (according to Barnet's own performance figures) significantly below the threshold. The response was, we think we will make the threshold and if we don't achieve it we will have to update the budget. That strikes me as incredibly complacent especially as there are concerns (detailed in the Municipal Journal) that the local government minister, Rishi Sunak may not honour £500m of New Homes Bonus payments due to councils. If these payments dry up the level of additional cuts that would be necessary to balance the budget are very large.

I then asked about the risks that insufficient care workers can be recruited and retained to meet the needs of the sector. Bear in mind Barnet is the largest London borough and has more care homes than any other borough. It also affects the care workers who support people at home. Again a high proportion of care workers are EU nationals and after Brexit it may become even more difficult to recruit staff. The question I asked was as follows:
"The risk register identifies the issues related to adult social care staff recruitment and retention. However, it does not address explicitly/quantify the financial impact on Barnet if, for example wages rates for carers are forced to increase significantly to attract and retain staff. What studies have Barnet carried out or commissioned to specifically quantify the financial impact of an increase in carer pay rates?"
Now I think that is a sensible question to be asking but Barnet's response was:
"The council has existing contracts with providers for the delivery of services which commit the council and the supplier to a set fee for services. The council continues to work closely with the local market at both a borough and regional level to assess the ongoing risk and impact of salary requirements within the workforce and ensure that rates remain sustainable and competitive". What they are saying in effect is - not our problem. The reason I am particularly concerned about this issue is that very recently a care home near to me, Apthorp House, received an inadequate rating from the CQC.  This care centre is run by Fremantle to whom Barnet outsourced their care services to back in the early 2000's and who last year were paid £3.7 million by Barnet. You can read the full CQC report here but I warn you it makes distressing reading. One of the quotes from the summary was as follows:
"There were not enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People told us they had to wait to receive care, and we saw people’s dignity was compromised as there were not enough staff available to support them in a timely manner. Bathrooms were dirty and this exposed people to the risk of harm due to poor infection control practice. Risks to people were not always identified, and risk assessments were not always followed. Medicines were not managed in a safe way".

Now, looking on line I noticed that Apthorp are advertising for care staff but at the national minimum wage of £7.83/hr rising to £8.28 /hour after a probation period and care certificate. It is all very well Barnet saying we have a fixed price contract with care homes like Apthorp but if that means they can only afford to pay minimum wage and that isn't enough to attract and retain staff then we have the risk of a major problem which might ultimately lead to the closure of the centre. From my perspective we need a grown up conversation which may mean increasing the amount paid to care homes on the basis that care staff are offered London Living Wage as a minimum. Unfortunately when I asked the director of Adult & Communities (salary £148,099/annum) if they had considered the London Living Wage they said "It's not all about the money". Well I'm afraid to say that if you are on £7.83/hr, the money is pretty blinking important and an extra £2.72/hr (the difference between National Minimum Wage and London Living Wage) could make a huge difference to the ability to recruit and retain care staff. However, it will cost more money and Barnet say they don't have any. Barnet are also looking to review people who receive care at home and if the cost is higher than putting them into a care home then they will be moved into a care home. This is not about what is best for the individual, it is about what is cheapest and that seems brutal.

Next financial year Barnet have to make a further £20 million of savings topped up with £5.35 million from reserves. This is an incredibly tough budget and many people will blame central government and that is true. But Barnet can't relinquish all responsibility as they have chosen to freeze council tax for the last 7 years, only taking social care precept rises. Before the last election any sensible person would have seen the additional massive cuts coming and taken a 2.99% council tax rise but Barnet Tories chose to freeze council tax again. Some people may say they don't want to pay any more for council tax but ultimately you have to take a rational view; do I pay what is needed or do I bury my head in the sand and wait for the crisis to happen. Well it's happening and it will get much, much worse. My thoughts are that we need to take a big tax rise this year, say, 6%. Based on my calculations this would add an extra £6.8 million this year and every year going forward, so it would help to cut the savings target over the next five years from £65 million to £31 million, still a stretch, but would allow for some of the risks on wage pressures and reduction in new homes bonus. It would make up for the freeze last year and would at least mean that we stand a bit of a chance in delivering some services to a reasonable standard. It would require a referendum of Barnet residents but I genuinely believe that if you explain to people what the consequences will be of not taking this extra increase they will agree - so long as the money isn't squandered on non essential activities.

That's not to say that Barnet can't make savings elsewhere. Barnet are spending £50 million to relocate to a new office building at Colindale. It is overdue and they are now looking at May for a moving in date. I asked about the lease on Barnet House and whether they had agreed a termination of the lease but the answer was "no not yet". That means we risk having the building standing empty but still shelling out rent of £65,000 each month until the lease termination is agreed. 

Barnet have also made huge financial commitment to fund the new Thameslink Station at Brent Cross which is anticipated to cost £365 million. Originally it was planned to ringfence the business rates from the expansion of the Brent Cross shopping centre to fund the interest payments. However, with the decision of Hammerson to pause the extension Barnet have been negotiating with Government as to a different funding model. This has been identified as a potential risk for the council so I asked the following question:
"OP27 (of the risk register) identifies the risks associated with the affordability of the Thameslink project and in particular the risk that Government may claw back grants leaving Barnet liable for the abortive costs. What is the scale of the abortive cost liabilities and when will a final decision be made as to whether this project will be aborted?" Not surprisingly Barnet did not give any indication of the scale of costs so I asked a supplementary question asking whether the scale was half a million or £5 million or £20 million or £50 million. The answer was "we don't know at the moment". That is an answer I find terrifying and utterly unacceptable especially as the sum could be huge.
As the Finance Director pointed out the budget is finely balanced and there is little room for manoeuvre. I forecast that the financial position will only get worse next year as wage pressures increase, it becomes impossible to deliver all of the £20 million of budget savings and government puts more financial pressure on Councils.
We should be talking directly about the reality of a council tax increase above 2.99% and the need to catch up for the seven years of freezes. Now is not the time for political point scoring if we are to avoid a major financial and social crisis. I just hope there are a few more sensible voices out there.

Financial Performance in Barnet - Some very serious questions

Next Monday is the first meeting of the newly restructured Financial Performance and Contracts Committee. You can view the committee papers here but I warn you they are a long read. This committee last met on 27 February, 4 weeks before year end. At that point no significant mention was made of the poor financial performance. Four months is far too long to wait for a committee dealing with such important matters. Maybe it was because Barnet or Capita were too ashamed of the results.

CSG run by Capita had a dismal performance including failing 18 contract indicators. But not to worry. The footnote makes it clear that although they had all these failures, none of them count as a contract failure so that's Capita off the hook. I absolutely despair of Barnet's ability to enforce performance on these contracts.

Capita run Re also turned in an appalling financial performance. At the committee meeting on 27 February they showed a net overspend of £285,000. By financial year end, 4 weeks later that had increased to £6.7 million. Someone somewhere was not doing their job to have such a massive change in financial performance in the last 4 weeks of the financial year. I would also draw your attention as to how they change the format between reports to make comparison a bit more confusing.

Of critical importance at this meeting is the dire financial situation and what it means for Barnet residents. This financial year Barnet has to make an additional £9.5 million of savings. That is on top of the £9.9 million of savings they have already budgeted (but may fail to achieve). What is worse is that while the reports detail the failings there is no clear indication of how these problems will be resolved. The reports also uses positive narrative and spin to make the situation less serious than it really is, a worrying approach if councillors aren't super vigilant in interpreting what they are being told. Last year Barnet had to use £21 million from reserves and balances to fund the overspend, a situation which is entirely unsustainable but I see no prospect of how they are going to close the  budget gap this year.

Set out below are questions I have submitted to the committee. As always I have low expectations of whether they will be adequately answered. I will update you after the meeting.

1. On 27 February 4 weeks before year end this committee was made aware of an overspend after adjustments from reserves of £4.232 million. In 4 weeks that overspend almost doubled to £7.885 million. Why was there such a serious under reporting of the financial position at the last meeting?
2. Given that this committee was not alerted to the scale of the  financial overspends at the 27 February meeting, 4 weeks before year end, and only discovered in May when the year-end accounts were being closed, how confident are you that this report provides you with an accurate picture of current financial performance?
3. Do you think that the net draw on reserves and balances for 2017/18 of £21.148m is either acceptable or sustainable and what steps are you going to take to ensure this huge draw on reserves and balances does not occur again this year.
4. 1.2.3 implies that the Policy and Resources committee were aware and approved of all the drawdown on reserves and balances which they were not at their meeting on 13 February, 6 weeks before year end. Do you think the wording of this section should be changed to reflect the fact that such a large shortfall was only identified after year end accounts were closed.
5. In the report it states that the overspend was reduced following drawdown from reserves. This is entirely misleading as the overspend was not reduced. Should the report be corrected to say the overspend was offset following drawdown from reserves as that is a more accurate description of the situation.
6. At this meeting in February most of the budget overspends were identified with one significant exception which is the Re budget. In February the Re budget outturn was forecast at £611,000 with reserve movements of £241,000. On that basis paragraph 1.2.18 entirely misrepresents the situation by saying that the budget was overspent by £3.954 million. Can you confirm that the budget was overspent by £6.7 million of which only £290,000 was identified at 27 February.
7. Of the two overspend items in the Re budget, is the £4.5 million guaranteed income the same element that was identified by the external auditor last year and on which the Audit committee were given solid reassurances by the Director of Resources that they would be recovered?
8. Will you be asking the Director of Resources why they gave such a reassurance last year that has failed to materialise?
9. Please can you explain why it took from July last year until after year end before this committee were made aware that this amount was not recoverable?
10. Please can you clarify specifically what you mean by the sum being “accounted for within the HRA budget” given that this sum is not reflected in the HRA budget outturn at Table 3?
11. Can you clarify specifically what the legal advice said as to why the “guaranteed income” should not be included in the General Fund revenue account?
12. If the other major Re overspend of £2.647 million was a contractual liability, why was it not recognised in the performance figures sooner so that other budgets could be adjusted before year end to reflect the liability?
13. At 1.2.23 the report states that “net pressure” is £9.5 million. Can you confirm that this is in addition to the planned savings already forecast of  £9.932 million meaning that total savings required this year are £19.432 million?
14. Given that we are three months into this financial year what is the latest update on the realisation of this £19.432 million of savings?
15. How confident are you that the narrative in this report is balanced and that it provides a true picture of performance?
16. At 1.6 in the report it states that six performance indicators were not met yet at  1.7 the report states that Cambridge Education only failed to meet one contract indicator. Does that mean that the commissioning and corporate plan indicators are not the contractual responsibility of Cambridge Education?
17. The report identifies indicators not met but no reassurance is provided as to how they will be met in the future. How can we be sure that these indicators will have been met when they are next reviewed?
18. At 1.8 no mention is made of the massive financial fraud that took place last year and which it appears was able to take place as a result of failing in the internal financial controls which are the responsibility of CSG. Can you tell me why this was not included in the report?
19. The report states that “a review of internal financial controls was undertaken and improvement implemented”. Is this the Grant Thornton Project Rose study, and if so when were these improvements implemented and will the report either be made public or circulated to members of this committee in private session/ “blue papers”.
20. The report notes that a gainshare working group was set up to review the application and reporting of procurement gainshare. Please can you provide me with more details as follows: what are their terms of reference; who attends the working group; how many times have they met so far; do they publish minutes; what is the timescale for producing a defined output; do Capita attend these meetings; will you be taking public evidence; and will the findings be made public?
21. How confident are you that the gainshare savings stated are real and specifically as a result of Capita expertise or could they have been achieved using standard framework contracts available to local authorities?
22. When I checked on the 23 May 2018, the contracts register for 2018/19 was on line and showed  that 112 contracts had expired before the start of the 2018/19 financial year. On 23 June 2018 the data set had been removed from the Barnet Open data portal. What is going on, it the contract register being maintained up to date, how many contracts are currently being used that have expired?
23. For 2017/18 I understood that the in-year Council Tax and NNDR collection rate were guaranteed at 98.0%. On that basis why is the in-year council tax collection rate shown as only 96.02%  and only 96.89%  for NNDR and will CSG be making up the shortfall?
24. There are a large number of KPI’s not being met or performance is worsening yet the report does not appear to identify what steps are being taken to ensure they situation improves. How can we have any confidence that these matters are being adequately addressed and that this time next year the situation will have improved?
25. Do you think it would be helpful to inform committee members that the caseload charges over and above the core fee for 2017/18 were £190,953 and that CSG customer service volume excess charges were £247,000?
26. Given that the council has now introduced monthly financial reporting can you include in the terms of reference that the quarterly financial reports must reflect a rolling quarter’s data i.e. the three months figures immediately prior to the committee meeting as a way on ensuring you get the most timely and accurate information.
27. When the report says the CFO’s report will give a “broad look” at financial performance it creates ambiguity and risks failing to provide you with important detailed information.  Given the content of the report are listed do you agree that the term “broad look” should be deleted and include the words “and any other information the committee deems important for the monitoring of financial performance”?
28. Do you think it would be advisable to add in the following phase: “The report must be provided in a consistent format which not only allows immediate transparency but facilitates the easy identification of trends in performance over a period of time”?
29. Will this report include details of the Budget Recovery Plan, progress on non-essential discretionary spend controls and any SPIRs that have been frozen?
30. Will the report give details of the Capita contract negotiations – even if they are provided in private session/within confidential “blue” papers?
31. Given that staffing and agency costs are a major source of budget overspends surely this committee should receive details of  staffing, incl. headcount, FTE, agency and sickness absence as these are financial performance issues not policy issues?
32. For the avoidance of doubt, who is the Chief Finance Officer as there is no such post in the LBB senior management structure; are they a Capita employee, the Head of Finance or the Director of Resources/S151 Officer.
33. Will the S151 Officer attend these meetings?
34. Why are we waiting until September to get a report on agency spend when it represents such a major cost to the council given that we will be half way through the financial year at that stage and have less opportunity to act on the findings before year end?

Financial failure - It looks like Capita run Re was a major problem

Reading the Barnet Council draft accounts I was curious to understand where the overspend in 2017/18 occurred. There was a lot of talk about the growing demands for family services and adult social care and sure enough some of the overspend was down to that. But what jumped off the page was the biggest single overspend of £3.95 million. Guess where? The Capita run Re (Regional Enterprise) contract. What I can't understand is that on a contract that is supposed to guarantee financial performance it ended up costing us nearly £4 million extra.

I have consistently said at Council meetings that there is no financial transparency on the Re contract and I keep being told not to worry.  Indeed on 27 February 2018, I raised the issued of transparency and Re's performance at the Performance & Contract Management Committee.

At that meeting the report showed that Re was overspent by £285,000 and that with a top up from reserves that brought it down to £44,000 overspend. This was apparently down to legal costs which are contractual liabilities payable by Barnet as you can see in the note below the table. Just to be clear, this was 4 weeks before year end.

So four weeks later the overspend has jumped from £44,000 to £3,954,000. I will be asking why this overspend has occurred but my concern is that it may be linked to the disputed invoice of £4.599 million identified at last year's audit.

This was due to a shortfall in guaranteed income promised by Re. At the Audit committee meeting last year I was reassured by the Director of Resources that this sum would be recoverable but I also noted that the Capita Partnership Director described it as a "disputed" amount. I blogged about it here and expressed my concern that little or none of it would be recoverable. That looks to have come true and the debt has been written off. I may be wrong but given the size of the sum and the fact that it occurred after quarter 3 results, this appears to be the most logical conclusion.

We are now at a tipping point. The CSG contract is under-performing with the Council considering bringing part of the finance function back in house; the Re contract predicated on guaranteed income appears to unenforceable. There are other matters which will come to light by the next audit meeting, which I cannot disclose at this time but which will have serious repercussion for the entire Capita contract.

Barnet must recognise the reputational and financial damage that these Capita contracts are inflicting and do the right thing. End the contracts with Capita.

Financial Meltdown in Barnet - Should we have been told about this before the election?

Yesterday Barnet published the agenda for the Policy & Resources committee next Monday which you can read here.  I am used to surprises but this one was gobsmacking. I blogged just a couple of weeks ago about the parlous state of Barnet's finances including the Medium Term Financial Strategy  (MTFS) published in February. Yesterday Barnet published a revised MTFS. The summary is set out below:

So whereas in February they were forecasting a shortfall of £2.79 million in 2018/19 they are now forecasting a £9.5 million shortfall and in 2019/20 the shortfall jumps from £8.2 million to £19.3 million all in the space of four months. The long term prospects are apocalyptic with a shortfall of £42 million in  2021/22 and by 2023/24 a "high level calculation" showing a shortfall of £62 million. This means the council can no longer exist in its current form.

I simply cannot believe that in February - before the election - no one was aware of just how bad the financial situation was, in which case were the electorate misled?

The committee meeting dealing with these matters is next Monday and I have submitted questions. Will I get any answers? Unlikely.

1.  The MTFS indicates a budget gap for this year of £9.45 million and a gap next year of £19.27 million yet at this committee in February there was no forecast gap for this year and a gap of £6 million next year. What has happened in 4 months to have made such a huge difference to the budget shortfalls?
2. At the end of Q 3 2017/18 the forecast outturn was a shortfall of £6.6 million yet by year end the shortfall had risen to £13.5 million. Did something dramatic happen in Q4 or is this a problem of poor/out of date financial reporting and if so who is to blame?
3. At 1.5.4 it proposes a new corporate plan for April 2019 reflecting the Conservative manifesto including keeping council tax low. Given that in the final year of this administration the budget shortfall is forecast at £42 million do you think keeping council tax low is prudent or denial of the financial reality?
4. If the high level calculations for 2023/24 prove to be correct in forecasting a £62 million budget shortfall, who should I hold accountable for this financial apocalypse?
5. By reallocating the NHB to support the revenue position it will cost an additional £1.3m per annum in capital financing. Is this simply storing up problems for later years?
6. If the current S151 Officer believes that we should have a reserve of £15.1 million why did the previous S151 Officer allow it to fall to £9.6 million at the start of the last financial year?
7. If this committee had been made aware of the seriousness of the financial situation in February do you think they would have still voted to freeze council tax (excluding the social care precept) for this financial year?
8. These budget shortfalls do not include the impact of the additional cost of borrowing to complete the Brent Cross Thameslink station. When that is factored in what is overall forecast budget shortfall for 2019/20 and 2020/21?
9. Who was responsible for making you aware of the additional borrowing requirement for the Brent Cross Thameslink station and why didn’t they do it sooner?
10. At 1.5.14 you identify managing demand as a way to reduce the budget gap. Given that you have been saying that for at least the last 6 years  since you published the graph of doom and that it is a policy that has repeated failed to deliver, do think you need to change the people who keep recycling this approach.
11. The report talks about radical options for the future of local services but fails to mention any engagement with local residents at the early stages of this process to help develop these options. Please will you confirm that you will publish a resident engagement/involvement plan before the process commences.
12. Given the foregoing issues raised under agenda item 7  and the need to cut capital borrowing why is the council  considering making a 30 year loan to Saracens to enable the construction of a new West Stand at Allianz Park?
13. Given that Capita are responsible for the finance function in the Council  why is Barnet paying for Grant Thornton support following a review of financial procedures and practices?
14. Before confirming a spend of up to £500,000 what are the specific objectives of this exercise and how will you measure whether their input has met those objectives?

Barnet Outsourcing and a Capita inspired £167k solution

In the latest Delegated Powers Report it notes the huge problems of staff retention in customer services, revenues and benefits and procurement departments that are due to be outsourced. The report states:

 "The current staff turnover rate within these services shows a loss of circa 32% of total staff numbers throughout the life of the procurement and early stages of mobilisation. This directly affects these public facing front line services and will be reputationally damaging for the Council". 

Now this report tries to pin the problems currently being experienced on the judicial review and appeal but the statement above reveals the truth  that the outsourcing programme itself, where staff know they will lose their jobs, has caused them to leave in their droves - why wouldn't they.

So to get around the problem CAPITA have suggested a solution which is to use CAPITA'S  "overflow staff" (I guess they mean their call centre staff in Darwen and Blackburn) to help the staff that remain and who await their redundancy notices if the judicial review appeal is unsuccessful.

The interim contract will cost £167,625 and will only run until 21 June in the hope that the judicial review appeal will have been heard by then (as they say, Barnet have two hopes, Bob Hope and No Hope and Bob Hope is dead). Part of this deal also includes what they term a" skeleton team" to prepare for the handover after the appeal hearing.

The report states that "This interim measure is for a 4 week period and does not prejudge the outcome of the Judicial Review appeal proceedings nor is the Council entering into the NSCSO contract prior to its formal commencement". I think that is to keep the lawyers happy.

Now we wouldn't be in the mess of the Council had actually carried out a proper consultation exercise in the first place, something Lord Justice Underhill was clear about in his judgement and I suspect one of the key reasons that an appeal on the technicality of timing has been allowed.

All of these types of problems should have been anticipated and should have been built into the risk register when the entire outsourcing programme was being considered. As ever our Councillors stuck their head in the sand and believed everything they were told by their hugely expensive advisors.

This is a mess and has been from the start. The DRS contract looks even worse given that it seems almost entirely dependent on generating new business from other local authorities something which brought about the demise of the infamous Southwest one Contract and which closer to home has been shown not to work for the beleaguered Your Choice Barnet contract. Councillors need to face up to reality that the whole One Barnet outsourcing project has been an extremely expensive mess and the sooner they recognised it and seek an alternative solution the sooner they can refocus on running an efficient and effective council.

Your Choice Barnet Board Meeting - Is bankrupcy Inevitable?

Last night I attended the Your Choice Barnet (YCB) Board Meeting and came away with a very real fear that this is an organisation in terminal decline.

It was a rather restrained and stage managed affair, which never really got down to the big issues which will impact the future survival of this organisation. YCB are currently proposing cuts to staffing, reduction in staffing skills and have already made massive increases to some charges to meet the financial shortfall they face this year. Barnet Council have up until now paid YCB through a block grant, guaranteeing a revenue stream to fund services. However, as from the start of this financial year in April Barnet Council have been paying on for services actually taken. Now while this may sound fair, it shifts all the risks of non attendance and providing a comprehensive and seemless service onto YCB.

Last night we saw details of which elements of the service are operating at a profit or a loss and the scale of the losses in some services are quite shocking.The biggest problem appears to be the Supported Living which made a loss of £513,042 last year. According to YCB's website supported living:

"Helps people with learning disabilities to live as independently as possible in their own home.
By offering service users support in all areas of living, we help them to enjoy life to the full, both at home and out and about. We encourage people to develop and maintain purposeful and meaningful skills.
It is important to us that people are secure and happy. That's why we ensure people live in neighbourhoods that they like and that meet their needs. We offer 24-hour support where needed."

Valley Way Respite Service also made a loss of  £195,209 and based on the discussions last night this seems to be because the facility is fully booked at weekends but under occupied during the week.

What also came out last night is that YCB are providing services which the Council are not funding. One of these included escort services on coaches, something which I would have thought was essential for the safety and well being for everyone on the coaches.


With the shift this year to payment only for services provided the situation looks incredibly difficult. In a SWOT analysis of the business going forward some of the threats include:

• More spending cuts to come in 2013/14;
• Competition in care and support market increasingly fierce - driving down prices;
• Low morale of staff following on from restructure;
• Care managers not referring people to YC services seen as too expensive and /or not offering choice; and
• Continuing local pressure for YCB to back in house and impact on staff/relatives/carers.

 The budget monitoring report has a very serious conclusion when it says:

"YCB is currently a loss making organisation and to ensure its viability in the long term it needs to embark on a cost cutting programme so as to increase financial security. The company has received a £1 million loan to ease its liquidity issues however, it is imperative that if costs are not reduced and income streams not increased, there is a risk of further liquidity crisis in the future. The main source of income for the company is from the Council and as it is now based on usage, there are income and liquidity implications if the company does not work towards increasing centres usage by clients. This risk is greater because the company's costs are largely fixed."

This should have massive alarm bells ringing at Barnet Council but I get the impression that actually they just don't care. Last night one of the board members asked if someone from Barnet Council could attend the next board meeting to give an indication of how much budget they had. I felt like shouting out "Why the hell aren't they here now", but I know the answer already. Barnet Council have very neatly shifted all responsibility for adult social care to someone else and washed their hands of the problems that will arise.

YCB see taking the service back in house as a threat - I see it as an inevitable conclusion and the sooner it happens the better. Prolonging the financial misery will inevitably impact on service users carers/relatives and the care staff all of whom will suffer from cuts in services, pay rates.

At the end of the meeting last night carers, relatives and services users wanted to express their views but the curtain came down on this tragedy and the actors flounced out. This is  a situation which needs to be addressed now, today, and unless it is the most vulnerable in our society will pay the price.