Barnet's Non Existent Leisure Strategy

For more than four and a half years I have been asking what is the council's Leisure Strategy. Without a leisure strategy is is hard to plan what facilities should be provided and whether the council's leisure provider GLL is doing an appropriate job. I blogged about this back in September 2011 and again in February 2012.Consultants were appointed but we never saw a copy of their report and then leisure became a 'One Barnet' project  - in other word waste loads of money and take twice as long to achieve very little. Last October at the Cabinet Resources meeting they discussed a series of options for leisure (now called the Sports & Physical Activity Review). The report noted:

"Physical activity levels within the borough are poor. Barnet is currently ranked 23rd out of 33 London boroughs for levels of adult physical activity according to the Sport England Active People Survey (5 Oct 2010). Physical activity levels of school children in Barnet are below the national average, with particular concerns relating to some faith schools and areas of deprivation".

They came up with a series of options as follows:

1. Divest and exit
2. Maintain spend but use resources differently
3. Cost reduction
4. Invest to save
5. Invest in new capital infrastructure

However, they promptly ruled out option 5 on the grounds that it wasn't "affordable". There was also a One Barnet style  project management report  which identified a project budget of £198,000 and a deadline of April 2013. They had already spent £100,000 by October 2012 so one would reasonably expect that the deadline of April would be achievable. Lots of named project members including Ed Gowan, now departed to Agilisys and Mick Quigley now departed to be headteacher at the Archer Academy. Roll forward to April 2013 and there is still no sight of the review. Then in June 2013 on the Budget & Performance Scrutiny Committee meeting Future Work Programme there is a mention of the review on the long list, post March 2014, and a request to receive an update on the review -  no date, no deadline.

This is what really gets me about Barnet Council; they are full of talk but no one ever follows up. It was quite clear in September 2011 that this was going to be kicked into the long grass. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent for no outcome which is shocking. Meanwhile we have a very poor leisure service as recognised in this year's Residents Perception Survey which showed a decline in satisfaction by 4% points and was rated 16% points lower than average London Councils, the worse result of any of the satisfaction criteria. Barnet are all about big gestures but continue to fail on the day to day business of delivering what people want or need.

Last Night's Audit Committee - a toothless talking shop?

Last night’s audit committee was a long and unsatisfactory meeting. I’m afraid that due to work pressures this is a rather perfunctory blog. I was aware right from the start that there was a tension in the air, referred to by Cllr Rayner as “the elephant in the room”, the subject of RM Countryside’s contractual relationship took over two hours before it made a brief and unsatisfactory appearance.

Mrs Angry and I had asked a number of questions, all successfully evaded or denied in the written responses. The one response that surprised me was the admission that One Barnet, the council’s transformation programme is “inherently risky”.

Procurement remains a running sore in Barnet and the latest date for centralising the purchasing function is June next year, almost a year since it was determined that it should take place.

I have long maintained that many of the problems identified at the audit committee last night are straightforward business issue that should never have happened in the first place. I am convinced that they have arisen because senior management have spent far too much time concentrating on implementing One Barnet and far too little time making sure the day to day business of the council is operated efficiently and effectively.

Procurement is a serious and immediate problem. At the same time, £200,000 a month is being paid to just one firm of external consultants to help implement One Barnet. If Barnet were to divert some of that consultancy spend into speeding up the centralisation of procurement I’m sure it could have been implemented by now.

Sadly, the audit committee is a bit of a toothless tiger; it may roar (or purr rather loudly) but ultimately officers don’t give a stuff because the committee has no power to call officers to account, admitted several times by chairman Lord Palmer. Cabinet members are the only people who can do anything in Barnet and, whilst that remains the case, the audit committee will remain the impotent talking shop it has become.