Internal Audit Give Barnet Limited Assurance Rating - it goes from bad to worse

The forthcoming Audit Committee papers have been published and it doesn't make for pleasant reading. All the reports are all here  In particular the Internal Audit Opinion is damning with only a limited Assurance rating, something the Council has not received since 2010/11. It includes statements like:

• There has been a weakening of the organisation’s control framework, with an increasing number of findings which demonstrate weaknesses and non-compliance in the framework of governance, risk management and control;

• An increasing number of high risk and medium risk findings relate to the financial management practices in place at the Council, specifically those around income and expenditure monitoring;

• Roles, responsibilities and reporting lines were not consistently defined or understood, leading to gaps in delivery and oversight;

• Data quality and integrity issues were noted across some areas at the Council, particularly regarding Pensions, HR, Section 106 and CILs. In the absence of strong data management and analysis, governance is weakened because the ability of senior staff and Members to scrutinise performance is reduced.

• Statutory and internal deadlines for activity were met, increasing the Council’s potential liability for additional fees and charges, and legal sanctions and reducing the extent to which its own enforcement activity can be carried out;
• We noted issues with the performance of key employment checks including DBS and right to work checks, which could lead to fines, legal action and reputational damage;
• Key health and safety checks relating to water safety were not carried out in line with required statutory timescales;

There are many more. I have already submitted my questions as set out below. We will, as always, 

have to wait and see if any of them actually get answered. I'm not hopeful but they are questions that must be asked.

1. Who decided that Appendix 1 should be exempt and was it at the request of an officer, a member or Capita?
2. You are stating Appendix 1 is exempt under paragraph 3, Part I, Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 which relates to financial or business affairs yet this report is about a failure of that financial or business performance. As such publishing the report may inform decisions being taken on the 19 July at the Policy and Resources committee. Please could you provide a copy of the public interest test that was undertaken before deciding that this report should be exempt?
3. Given that all of these events outlined in the report happened on the CEO’s watch, that the CEO is a Board Director of Re and that the CEO was the S151 Officer when the Capita and Re contracts were being decided, how can the CEO ensure that he is perceived as the right person to lead the council going forward?
4. Given that Grant Thornton were the Council’s external auditors when the CSG and Re contracts were let and that they may have reviewed the financial controls at that time or during the 2013/14 or 2014/15 audit, to what extent do you think this might be perceived as a conflict of interest and were any other accountancy companies considered to carry out this work?
5. The report states “We also noted a decrease in the extent to which staff were willing to engage with audit requests and provide deliverables in a timely manner. This led to prolonged periods of engagement in the case of some audits and an increase in audit delivery costs.” Were there any particular departments or delivery units where this was more prevalent and what would you say was the cause of this unwillingness to engage with Internal Audit?
6. It appears that a culture of ignoring the central guidance has developed with individual departments making their own decisions. What has caused this culture to develop and how do you think that culture can be changed?
7. As all of the items listed in this report have been flagged before in quarterly reports, it cannot come as a great surprise to you that the council has been given a limited assurance rating. What reassurance can you provide to me that this will get better given the senior management team when these events occurred are still in place?
8. The report states “There are significant weaknesses and noncompliance in the framework of governance, risk management and control which put the achievement of organisational objectives at risk” To what extent do you think this committee has to accept some of the blame for this situation and if so what do you think this committee could do better in the future?
9. The governance statement appendix B mentions best practice. Best practice suggests that “the audit committee chair should not be, expressly, a member of the executive. A non-executive chair is important in order to promote the objectivity of the audit committee and to enhance its standing in the eyes of the public”. Given that Cllr Finn is, or was until recently, the Chief Whip of the Conservative Group, please provide evidence as to how you believe there is a genuine separation from the Executive, that is both clear and perceived to be clear by residents, opposition and independent members?
10. Can you please clarify if monitoring CSG and Re for fraud is within the terms of reference of the CAFT team. What discussions have taken place with Capita’s own internal audit/investigation team about this situation, why did they not identify this fraud and to what extent should or could CAFT take responsibility for investigating CSG and Re going forward?

Supplier payments for May - Interim & Agency staff costs rising again

Just a short post today about Barnet's supplier payments for May.

Not much in terms of payments for Capita and Re this month as they tend to be paid quarterly so just £802,823.71 for Capita and £1,094,439.69 for Re. Comensura spend is on the up, with a total of £1,925,781.97 for may alone. Although it is to early to be certain, based on the first two months of this year the forecast looks like it might get back to the 2016/17 level of £20 million.

A few of interesting invoices that I did note were as follows:

• PA Consulting billed £685,804. The majority was for "IT & Comms". Given that I thought IT & Comms was the responsibility of  Capita, it is surprising we have such a large bill from another consultancy.
• We paid £13,940 to Comer Business & Innovation Centre. It may not sound like much but it is for space at NLBP. This tell me there isn't enough space in Building 2 at NLBP which make me worry about what is going to happen when Barnet relocate to a much smaller building at Colindale. I would also point out that although we were supposed to have vacated Building 4 at NLBP we are still paying for Capita to rent some of that space. Surely we should have looked to see if there was any spare space in Building 4 which we are already paying for first?
• We paid Saracens £28,398 for "rent". I am guessing this relates to the use of their stadium for the election count but it does seem rather a lot of money to pay for one night's usage.
• Assurance spent £308.33 at Pinks florists; that's quite a lot of flowers.

Coming up in the next week will be details of the year end audit and my findings from the inspection of the accounts. Keep reading and I will keep blogging.

Barnet - An Organisation In Denial

This sums up my feelings after last night's Financial Performance and Contracts Committee.


I had asked 34 questions and fellow blogger Roger Tichborne had asked another three yet most of  the answers were crafted to tell us nothing about what we had asked. Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard were also there to document the goings on but I think all four bloggers found the meeting entirely unsatisfactory.

Residents need to be aware of what a financial mess Barnet Council are in but the use of words in the reports discussed last night would have created a different perspective. Overspends were "reduced" not by cutting the amount spent but by topping up from reserves. In total last year we used £21 million from reserves to balance the budget, something which clearly isn't sustainable.

One of the serious problems occurred in the Capita run joint venture Re. Last year the external auditor identified a problem with £4.6 million of guaranteed income from Re that had not been paid. At that Audit meeting the S151 Officer who is the head of finance reassured everyone that the money would be recoverable. I had my doubts when the Capita partnership manager called the amount "disputed". I asked again about this money and whether it was going to be recovered at the performance and contract management committee  on 27 February just 4 weeks before year end. The reply from the council then was “The benefit to the council of additional income under the RE contract is guaranteed and does not, therefore, impact on RE’s budget performance” Four weeks later at year end and following legal advice they decided that it wasn't recoverable and it was written off. I don't doubt that writing it off is the right thing to do but what makes me so cross is that for nine months the council was in denial that it was a problem. We were also told that another £2.6 million of contractual liability had to be paid to Re and that it been "omitted from the forecast in error" but corrected before year end. Well technically that may be true but it wasn't corrected 4 weeks before year end. This tells me two things. One: take everything Barnet says with a massive pinch of salt and Two: we have a contract with Re which seems unenforceable and is costing Barnet a fortune. Set out below shows the impact of these late amendments on the accounts.

On gainshare, the nice little earner for Capita, we were promised back in January that this would be dealt with by this committee. Six months on and it is now being passed around a number of committees like a toxic pass the parcel. In my previous blog I gave one example of the sleight of hand which is the gainshare process. However the argument from Barnet Tories has always been that we may pay Capita for gainshare but we are saving money. I have always disputed this and last night I asked a question as to whether the savings were real. The wording of the response tells you everything you need to know about this process which assesses "contractually compliant savings". What that means is that who ever wrote the contract made it very easy for Capita to claim gainshare whether or not they provided any added value to the procurement process. I have a very serious example of where Capita have claimed a gainshare which I suspect most people will find morally wrong but because the contract allowed it Capita have claimed it and Barnet have paid it.

On the rest of the CSG contract Capita are failing on a number of key performance indicators (KPIs) but it doesn't matter because it doesn't count as a contract fail. 

If I was Richard Cornelius I would be taking legal advice as to whether we had grounds to sue the lawyers who acted for Barnet when this contract was being drafted because it is so heavily weighted in Capita's favour. I did suggest back in 2013 that Barnet should get a third party lawyer to review the contracts but as always that was dismissed. It may be a decision Barnet are now regretting.

At the end of last night's meeting I felt that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life. A meeting of complacency, and casual indifference with few questions from Tory members. Mr Mustard's tweet summed it up:

I didn't get any feeling of urgency about dealing with the massive annual overspend.

— Mr Mustard (@_MrMustard) July 2, 2018

Set out below is the speech I gave, sadly falling on deaf ears.

"Narrative too positive – needs to reflect true picture"

"Doesn’t highlight use of reserves. With this the £4 million overspend changes to an underlying variation of £8.5 million"

"CSG narrative not full picture  been told the true picture is much higher overspend"

"Family services net variance wrong"

"Satisfaction with website artificially inflated especially planning"

"Figures don’t match those published by NHS digital"

"Problems with payments Council owed £2 million"

Not my words but those of the Strategic Commission Board on 6 February discussing papers coming to this committee. I asked Richard Cornelius if he was aware of these issues before the year end – he said no he wasn’t but that they should have been reported.

You as a committee can only scrutinise what you are given and if you aren’t given a clear picture you can’t make the right decisions. I do not think you got a clear picture then and I am worried you aren’t getting a clear picture now. I’ve submitted 34 questions yet many of the answers show an organisation in denial, scared to be honest. We are in a financial mess and you all need to be honest as to how it is going to be addressed.

Back in February I asked you a specific question about the Re guaranteed income and you said “The benefit to the council of additional income under the RE contract is guaranteed and does not, therefore, impact on RE’s budget performance. Performance against the guarantee will be reconciled and published as part of the annual accounts process”. Yet now we find that was wrong.

In January former Audit Committee Chair Hugh Rayner said they were referring Gainshare to this committee. I asked about this in February and you said "Both referrals to PCM committee from Audit Committee (on benefits realisation and gainshare) will be formally noted at this PCM committee, and then scheduled into the forward plan. Now you are saying that it has been pushed to Policy and Resources and will be brought to the appropriate committee in due course". This smacks of pass the parcel.

I have not one ounce of confidence in this committee and will not do so until you start answering straight questions with straight answers. Get a grip, stop spinning and start sorting out this mess.

Are we on the brink of victory or will it be a missed opportunity - The future of Capita in Barnet

On Friday, Barnet made an admission, a big admission; an admission that Capita is not delivering for Barnet. For me that comes as no surprise. I have been concerned about the scale and complexity of this contract since 2011 when the first clear contractual details emerged.

Sadly they are leaving a number of services with Capita that are either; under-performing; costing a fortune; or where Capita add little or no value. 

Set out below are a few examples of why they are mistaken in leaving these services with Capita.

Procurement:

In terms of procurement, Barnet will have to pay Capita £14.3 million over the next 5 years in “Gainshare” where they get a share of any savings, yet most of the “savings” could have been secured through standard framework contracts available to all local authorities. In addition, some savings are calculated against a budget. Imaging walking into a shop to buy a new vacuum cleaner. The shop keeper says "what's your budget" and you say "£200". The shopkeeper offers you a vacuum cleaner priced at £100. "There you go", says the shopkeeper "that will be £133".  But it only cost £100. "Ah yes", says the shopkeeper "but your budget was £200. I saved you £100 so I'm entitled to a third of the saving plus the cost of the cleaner". I know that sounds nonsensical but I have an almost identical example of this sharp practice from last year's Capita invoices but sadly the sums involved were significantly greater.

Finance:

This department has had significant problems. In terms of "transactional services" I am not sure what they mean precisely but if you look at the last audit report accounts payable, run by Capita received only limited assurance (which is poor) with problems in

• "Potential Duplicate payments (high risk) – Control design"
• "BACs Reconciliation (high risk) – Control operating effectiveness"
• "Policies, Procedures and Process notes (medium risk) – Control design"

Revs & Bens:

Barnet have been charged an additional £521,000  in the last two years for the “extra caseload” in Revenue & Benefits. That’s on top of the core fee we already pay. What you also need to recall was that back in 2012 the in-house Revs & Bens team were rated the second highest performing in London as rated by the DWP.

IT:

This area has had on going problems and it has been recognised that the Capita Integra system has significant problems. Prior to Capita, the council had invested in SAP a sophisticated system that integrates many different functions within one system and is used by some of the very largest organisations - expensive but good.

Printing;

Last year we were charged an extra £189,823 for printing - that is on top of the core fee.

HR Payroll:

There have been lost of errors with the payroll. In 2016/17 Capita had to repay £187,630 in service credits (a sort of fine) specifically for failings in payroll accuracy.

Pensions Administration:

There have been repeated problems with Pensions administration which culminated last year in Barnet being fined by the Pensions Regulator for the failings in pension administration. The Pensions Board have raised serious concerns about Pensions Administration.

Customer Service:

On customer service Capita charged Barnet £416,000 last year for “excess customer service volume”.  Capita set a baseline figure in the contract and anything over that we get charged extra. There is currently a plan currently to try and get these volumes down by cutting Face to Face services and to create "savings opportunities from telephony service degradation". That is something I find shocking but it shows how the tightly drawn contract with Capita forces these bizarre actions to get the extra costs down.

Planning and Planning Enforcement:

This is an area where so many residents are unhappy especially as Re not only assess planning applications but also generate income from planning advice. Enforcement has been very poor although that is now receiving close attention. When I attended the Re four year review almost every representation from members of the public were complaints about Planning or Planning enforcement.

Licensing also creates potential conflicts of interest and I saw a case recently where licensing had earned a fee to advise a license applicant but Environmental Health, another part of Re were opposing the application. As for Environmental Health and Trading Standards my view is that these are well outside the core skills of Capita. Former Barnet employees brought the skills, they do a good job so why pay a fee to Capita for no real added value.

So given all that information I am at a loss why Barnet are content to leave all these services with Capita. 

Over the next few days I will set out why taking a much more strategic view as to how the services could be restructured  would not only save money but could also deliver a better service for residents.

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?

Barnet Food Waste Collections – a dirty business - A joint blog by Mr Mustard & Mr Reasonable

UPDATE FROM THE MAYOR OF LONDON

"The London Environment Strategy and the policies and proposals on waste and recycling have been developed following an unprecedented process of evidence gathering, analysis, stakeholder consultation and dialogue. Barnet did not respond during the public consultation on the issue of food waste collection, which was included in the waste policies and proposals.  The waste policies represent a trajectory that is the best environmental and economic solution for the city and at the borough level. Londoners too expect and deserve a consistency of service provision across the city. The evidence points to the impacts that food waste collection has on driving higher rates of recycling across the board I am concerned about the impact on recycling performance from Barnet’s decision to stop separate household food collections. I do possess, through the GLA Act, the backstop power to direct authorities, where I consider it necessary for the purposes of implementing the municipal waste provisions of the London Environment Strategy.  Moreover, waste authorities have a duty under that Act to undertake their waste responsibilities in such a way as to be in general conformity with the strategy. However, the use of my power of direction is clearly an option of last resort, once all other avenues have been explored and exhausted.

On the 19th of June, I wrote to the Leader of Barnet Council expressing my deep concern at their decision and requesting that it is put on hold. This will enable my officers to now start the process required of us under the GLA Act.   See also answer to Mayor’s Question 2018/1583".

As is the way in Barnet, nothing is ever quite as it seems. On 5 June, just four weeks after the local elections, Barnet Conservatives voted to scrap the separate brown bin food waste collections on the basis that it would save £300,000 a year. A minor concession was suggested by Cllr Peter Zinkin that officers should identify how those residents who wish to continue to recycle their food waste could do so but with the rider that it should be at no extra cost to the council.

Both Mr M & Mr R thought this was a poor and illogical decision and decided to investigate further.

With follow up questions to the Director of Street Scene, the basis of the £300,000 saving was identified as follows:

“There are 12 front line blue bin and food collection rounds. Each of these round has one loader dedicated to collecting food waste, and two loaders to collect recycling. Stopping food collections will mean that 12 loaders will not be need for this purpose. The mid point cost of a loader including on costs for 2018/19 is £26,906. As such the savings on 12 loaders was calculated to be £322,870. The increase in disposal costs for food waste being transfer into the brown bin was £22,300.  We are not going to make staff  redundant those loaders who are no longer collecting food waste will instead be used as a pool of staff to fill in for staff on leave etc. rather than them being replaced by agency staff. This will reduce the recycling and waste agency spend”.

The key figure here is the increased disposal cost of food waste incineration which is quoted as £22,300. Now one thing Barnet Council fail to grasp is that Barnet Bloggers double check everything.

We had discussions with: 

• the company that currently carries out the anaerobic digestion of Barnet’s food waste;
• three other anaerobic digestion companies in North and East London;
• London Energy (the company that runs the waste incinerator); and
• the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) who manage all waste disposal for seven North London Boroughs including Barnet;

and a different  picture emerged.

According to many sources, food sent to anaerobic digestion has a much lower cost compared to being sent for incineration. NWLA confirmed what is termed “gate fees”, the charge for disposing of waste as follows: Waste sent for incineration £89.47 per tonne, food waste sent for anaerobic digestion £31.39 per tonne, a difference of £58.08 per tonne.

Barnet currently sends 5,000 tonnes of food waste annually to anaerobic digestion, so the increased cost of sending food waste for incineration is not £22,300 but in fact £290,400. On that basis removing brown bin collections will not save £300,000 per annum, it will instead save £32,470. What is worse is that as the borough grows and more food waste is incinerated, that modest saving could be eroded to a point where there is no saving at all.

So coming back to Cllr Zinkin’s offer, it is possible to recycle everyone’s food waste at a very modest cost compared to what officers are proposing, just £32,470 or around 23p per household per year. We think it’s worth it.

Mr Mustard & Mr Reasonable

ICO Judgement - Barnet Must Release Capita Day Rates

Since the start of the Capita contract I have been concerned about the cost of "special projects" which are billed as an extra on top of the contract price agreed with Capita. In particular, these projects are charged at an agreed consultancy day rate, listed in the contract but redacted from public view. This has concerned me given the enormous size of the special projects bill. In 2016/17 special projects cost Barnet residents £16.8 million - that's on top of the core contract fee of £29.48 million they already receive.

The contract stated that the day rates would be commercially sensitive for three years so last year I duly asked for a copy so that I could see exactly how much we are being charged for each project and to assess whether we are getting value for money. While some of these projects need very specialist expertise, some could be done by salaried staff at a much lower cost as a council officer confirmed to me at a council meeting.

With Barnet having refused to provide these day rates and refusing an internal review, I took my complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). After some prolonged deliberation they initially came back saying that Capita had stated that disclosure would undermine their ability to compete in the market place. Barnet Council also objected saying that disclosure would undermine their ability to secure other consultancy at competitive rates. I argued that if the day rates were higher than the marketplace then we should know and it might encourage Barnet to renegotiate them with Capita. If they were low it would help to drive down rates from other consultancy contracts. I made it clear to the ICO that Barnet was under severe financial pressures and keeping the details of such a large cost secret was not appropriate especially as both Capita and Barnet had signed a contract saying the day rates would be released after three years,  a contract to which residents may not be a signatory but are definitely a stakeholder.

After another prolonged period I heard last Friday that the ICO had ruled in my favour and required Barnet to publish the day rates. They have now published the full judgement on the ICO website. You can read it in full here. I wait to see if Barnet appeal the decision or publish the information.