GMB call for Brent Council to bring cleaning services back in-house following report recommendation

Since I published the earlier article (January 8th LINK)reporting that Monday's Brent Cabinet will decide whether to bring back estate cleaning services in-house, the GMB have issued the following press release:

After 10 years of minimum wage and poor terms and conditions under Wettons Cleaning services our hard working members deserve better, says GMB London

GMB have called for the approval of Brent Council’s cleaning services to be brought back in-house at a Council meeting on Monday 14 January.

This is following a report which recommended tenants and leaseholders get more control over the service, by the cleaning of council estates being dealt directly by Brent council.

Wettons Cleaning Services Limited currently clean housing estates across the borough, after being awarded the contract in 2009. They are responsible for the maintenance of the internal and external communal areas of blocks of flats managed by the council.

Krissy O’Hagan, GMB Regional Officer said:

“After 10 years of minimum wage and poor terms and conditions under Wettons Cleaning Services our hard working members deserve better, bringing the service back in-house will correct this pay inequality and improve working conditions.

“Brent Council are committed to bringing services back in house, and GMB ask that this commitment is honoured and they do the right thing!”

Sheffield Tree Defenders' Stump Up Appeal has just reached its target

Guest post by Alan Story


The Stump Up Sheffield (SUS) crowdfunder, “Defend the Tree Defenders: Stump Up Sheffield” ended a few minutes ago. 

You did it. We all did it. 

We’ve been successful in meeting our target of raising £27,000 to pay the legal costs of two tree defenders that were levied against them by Sheffield City Council (SCC). 

Although the Crowdfunder states that we have raised £20,470, other funds are being pooled together and there is now sufficient money available for Calvin Payne and Alastair Wright to pay these legal costs. So it is a time for celebration.

“But of course it sticks in our craw that all of this funding will be going into the coffers of SCC and that these bills were so steep because Sheffield City Council chose some of the most expensive lawyers in the country to enforce a civil injunction,” said Alan Story, a spokesperson for SUS. 

In Calvin’s case, SCC brought in a £15,000-a-day Queen’s Counsel from London as its hired gun for a November 2017 hearing against Calvin and Green Party councillor Alison Teal. (In Alison’s case, the Labour-controlled council used dodgy evidence against a fellow councillor; this evidence and her case were thrown out of court.) But Calvin, who was defended by barrister Paul Powlesand working on a pro bono basis, was convicted of breaching the Council’s injunction and given a suspended prison sentence. 

Alan Story said:

SCC made a political decision to try and crush Calvin and Alastair financially as part of a wider strategy of trying to crush the entire Sheffield trees movement but we were not cowed. Tree campaigners in Sheffield and our many allies across the country --- and the world --- said with one voice: ‘an injury to one tree campaigner is an injury to all tree campaigners’ and have stumped up marvellously.

We think it showed true Yorkshire grit and financial sacrifice and sends the message that this chainsaw massacre of OUR street trees should be ended immediately. And that mediation with tree campaigners needs to be at the top of Julie Dore’s agenda.

Since the crowdfunding campaign began 28 days ago, a total of 796 supporters have contributed £20,470, plus more than £800 in donations via PayPal. If you scroll through the 343 comments listed on the SUScrowdfunding page , you will see both the passions (and intellect) this issue has aroused, as well as the geographic breadth of the support. Money was donated by people from places such as British Columbia, Missouri, Brussels and Australia as well as across the UK in locations such as the Shetland Islands, London, Dorset and beyond. 

A significant pot of additional money has come in to SUS from the recent benefit concert of well-known Sheffield musicians; it was quickly sold out and was attended by 800 people. As Pitsmoor-born Richard Hawley said in a SUS video shot at the concert, the Council needs to admit that it has “ f***ed up” over trees. A lifetime Labour voter, Hawley says he has backed away from supporting Labour only twice: once over the Iraq War and now over the local street trees crisis. 

The official accounting of all the funds raised by this campaign will be released next week.
But the fund-raising efforts of the SUS team have not ceased. On Sunday 22 April at the Crookes Social Club, we are hosting the “Let’s Hear it for the Trees!” benefit concert. 

More details Here’s a YouTube video of one of the talented musicians, Nancy Kerr, who will be performing that night. LINK  

Money raised from the benefit gig will go towards future legal costs associated with Sheffield tree defenders.And it may well be needed. In what is obvious harassment, South Yorkshire Police keep arresting tree campaigners on baseless charges. In the most recent shameful case, charges were dropped this week against a 73-year-old retired firefighter LINK. 

We think the campaign was successful because, first and foremost, we were working on a clear case of injustice that touched a lot of people. But, as well: 

•          We had excellent high-profile endorsers including Caroline Lucas, George Monbiot, Maxine Peake, and Ken Loach. (Many more endorsers joined later.)
•          We had a team of 17 people of many talents who worked together on a co-operative and democratic basis. (The copy for the crowdfunder went through five drafts!)
•          We produced two videos (still available for viewing) and reached out widely across various social media. For example, we posted our crowdfunding message on +50 Facebook groups, which also spread the Sheffield trees saga to tens of thousands of people. Twitter tweeted merrily. 

At a February 7th  Sheffield City Council meeting, SCC tree felling czar Bryan Lodge claimed: “I travel around to different places… and it (the Sheffield chainsaw massacre) is not a topic of conversation in Southampton.” Take another trip Bryan. 

The SUS team was pulled together by NO STUMP CITY. Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) was also a listed sponsor.

On behalf of Stump Up Sheffield
Alan Story
no.stump.city@gmail.com

-->

Barnet UNISON 24 hour strike on Monday November 2nd

Barnet UNISON members who still work for Barnet Council (excluding community schools) will begin a 24 hour strike action on Monday 2 November 

The dispute involves social workers, coach escorts, drivers, occupational therapists, schools catering staff, education welfare officers, library workers, children centre workers, street cleaning & refuse workers, all of whom have made it clear they want to remain employees of Barnet Council and don’t want to be outsourced.

In November 2015 a number of Barnet Council Committees will be making decisions about the future employment of staff working in

· Education and Skills and School Meals

· Adult Social care

· Children’s Centres

This is all part of the wider strategy to reduce the workforce to a small core of commissioners.

Our Picket Lines will be:

· Barnet House from 7 am.

· Mill Hill Depot—Starts 6 am onwards.

· Edgware Library —Start 9 am onwards.

UNISON Branch Secretary John Burgess said:

Our members want to work for the Council, they want to be directly accountable to the residents of Barnet. Our members don’t want to work for an employer which will have to place the shareholders’ legal demands before local residents’ needs. Our members don’t want to work for an employer which uses zero hours contracts. Our members don’t want to work for an employer which will not pay the London Living Wage as a basic minimum. Our members don’t want to work for an employer which won’t allow their colleagues to belong to their Pension Scheme, and our members don’t want to work for an employer which will take jobs out of the borough. That’s why 87% of our members working for the Council voted ‘Yes’ to taking strike action. So far the Council has failed to come close to agreeing to any one of these demands. One of our members has written and produced a music campaign video called “UNISON Army” which pretty much sums up the mood of our members take a look. (see above)  

Caroline Lucas & Davy Jones condemn Green councillors' privatisation decision

The political decisions of the minority Green Council in Brighton and Hove have been controversial , locally and nationally, within the Green Party and within the broader left movement. At the crux of the argument has been the degree to which the Council should go along with the austerity agenda and implement cuts and costs savings, claiming that 'Green cuts' would be more progressive than those made by the other parties. At the same time the Council has also made considerable progress on the Green agenda. (See article on New Statesman website LINK)

A decision made at by some Green councillors at a Council committee last night has brought out the differences between the Council leadership's perspective and that of the city's Green MP and prospective MP.

Caroline Lucas MP, (Green Brighton and Hove) and Davy Jones (Green candidate for Brighton Kempton) have issued the following statement:

We are disappointed that at yesterday's Brighton & Hove Council Policy & Resources Committee meeting some Green Group councillors including the Council leader Jason Kitcat, voted to accept a Health & Well-Being Board recommendation to out-source a local NHS service (ICES) to provide specialist equipment for people with disabilities to a private sector provider.

It is a complicated situation - the Sussex Community NHS Trust was threatening to pull out of the service, "cost shunting" the responsibility over to the cash-strapped local Council that only provides a small component of the service currently. This is deeply regrettable. But we believe the Council has made a mistake in allowing itself to be forced by the NHS Trust to out-source this service to a private sector provider.

There was no necessity to make this decision earlier today – the existing contract runs until September 2015, leaving plenty of time to seek alternative solutions to keep the service in public hands.

We are particularly disappointed in today’s decision as it is not one that is in line with national or local Green Party policy, that unreservedly opposes the privatisation of NHS services. Neither was the ICES decision brought before the local Green Group or Green Party in advance for discussion. The Green Party councillors on the Council recently successfully proposed a motion to the full Council meeting opposing privatisation of NHS services.

We reiterate our outright opposition to the out-sourcing of the ICES service and to support the staff in the NHS in their campaigns to remain in the public sector, and NHS campaigners fighting against privatisation.

SELL OFF: the full NHS movie

Brent Cabinet considers part privatisation of Children's Centres

Mikey Pavey launches Labour Friends of Sure Start

When lead member for Brent Children and Families, Cllr Michael Pavey launched Labour friends of Sure Start aimed at campaigning for and championing Children's Centres.

Now as Deputy Leader he and Cabinet colleagues are discussing plans to part-privatise Children's Centres in order to save money.

In Phase One of the scheme to make Children's Centres 'sustainable' a tier of local management was removed. Phase Two brought in private and voluntary providers for some Centres:

.    Phase Two comprises the reconfiguration of Barham Library Children’s Centre, St Raphael’s Intergenerational Centre and Treetops Children’s Centre to provide children’s centre nursery places via private and voluntary providers. This change was approved by Cabinet in July and the early years team is working with Property Services and Legal Services to develop suitable agreements and get the new provision in place. 


Now Phase Three proposes to out-source day to day management of and governance of other Centres:

3.19  Phase Three proposal. The proposed third phase of change is to develop a new model of delivery. It is proposed to consult service users, staff and other stakeholders on a proposal to tender the management and day to day governance of the children’s centres to an experienced provider with that provider taking on the running of the buildings, the employment and management of staff and the responsibility for service delivery to meet the core offer requirements. 


 3.20  Under this model the selected provider will resource and develop the required universal services and the Local Authority will fund the targeted Early Intervention services for the most vulnerable families. Under this model the strategic role for the Early Years Service will be to secure good quality children’s centres, challenge practice and performance management, supporting good Ofsted outcomes and focusing resources on the targeted households and other families with additional needs. 


3.21  Essentially this model attempts to deliver a similar level of service to the current model (or potentially better) for a reduced level of resourcing from the local authority. It looks to future sustainability, since external service providers will have the ability to leverage in additional funds from their own contacts for example the National Lottery, European funding, etc which the current service, as a council service, cannot access. 


 This excludes Curzon, Fawood and Challenge House who already have a partnership.

The proposals, following DfE rules, have to go to formal consultation taking 3 - 4 months and the Council would have to devise an appropriate procurement process which may prove complex.

Eventually, unless the proposals are successfully challenged, Centre staff, and some office staff, would be TUPEd over to the new provider.

It will be argued, as often with cuts and privatisation, that new efficiencies will reduce costs without detriment to the quality of service, and further that this is the only way to enable Children's Centres to survive in the Council's dire financial situation. Councillors will point to other local authorities where such arrangements exist as well as those that have closed their Centres.

Protest at Brent Council's 'High Risk' Meals on Wheels changes

From Brent Fightback (see my previous posting on this proposal HERE)

Brent Fightback is calling a protest at the Civic Centre this coming Monday (16th September) from 6.30pm  to protest at the proposal that Brent Council hand over the delivery of the meals on wheels service to “a range of local charities, communities and businesses”.

The Brent Executive is set to approve the proposals at their meeting that evening.

Currently, the meals on wheels service is outsourced. However, rather than a proposal which would cut out the profit-makers, this proposal is purely about cutting cost (by 50%). This decision will lead to cuts in quality of the meals, and pay (are the charities/community groups using unpaid volunteers?), the council's own risk assessment evaluates "Lack of market capacity leads to service users going without meals" = High!
http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s19140/asc-community-meals.pdf

ie. most vulnerable, elderly and sick could be left without access to meals!

Why services are better in public hands - the need for a Public Service Users Bill

The We Own It campaign LINK  will launch their report on the need for a Public Service Users Bill on Monday. The Bill would promote and protect high quality and accountable public services.

They list the benefits of public ownership:

1. You use it

Meeting your needs – whether that's at the doctors' surgery or at the post office – should mean giving you time, attention and care. Public ownership makes it easier for staff to take the time that’s needed rather than squeezing services to boost profits. This means that when public services are in public hands, they tend to be better run. Local authorities across the UK are bringing services in-house to improve their quality and value for money.

2. You pay for it

Public services are something we all pay for, and we all use. Public ownership means your money is better spent, both locally and nationally. Money can be reinvested into services to improve them, instead of subsidising the profits of private companies. Savings are also made because services are integrated and there is no need to manage contracts. Publicly run East Coast rail has saved the taxpayer £600 million and if water was in public hands, household water bills would be around £80 a year cheaper.

3. You have a say in it 

When public services are run by local or national government, it's easier for you to know who to turn to when you want to complain, and to have your say in how you want services to be improved. The public sector must make data available to you and respond to Freedom Of Information requests (unlike the private sector). Public ownership also means it's possible for the whole of society to decide on a goal (for example, a long term energy policy) and achieve it efficiently. Most people want public services to be provided publicly and almost all of us want a say in how they are run.

4. You share it 

Public services are something we all share. When services are owned by all of us, it's easier for staff to work with service users and community groups to improve them. This can and should involve imaginative ways to keep making them better. In the 21st century, public services should be about people, not profit. Public ownership can sometimes involve the voluntary sector, social enterprises and cooperatives where that's the right solution, and where there are safeguards in place to protect public assets.

5. Examples all over the world show that it works better

In the UK, despite the current drive to privatise, many local authorities are bringing services in-house to boost satisfaction and save money. Across Europe, public ownership is making a comeback. For example, the water in Paris is now owned and controlled by the city, and in Germany energy is being generated locally by publicly owned utilities. In the US, a fifth of all previously outsourced services have been brought back in-house.

The Bill would ensure:

Public ownership would be the default for public services

1. Public ownership would be prioritised as the default option that is looked at first, before contracting out (supported by 60% of the public). Local and national government would always explore best practice public ownership, before turning to private companies.

2. There would always be a realistic, thorough in-house bid from the public sector whenever a public service – local or national - is put out to tender (supported by 80% of the public).

3. The public would be consulted before any service is privatised or outsourced (supported by 79% of the public).

4. Organisations with a social purpose – the public sector and genuine cooperatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises – would be prioritised in the tendering process (supported by 57% of the public).

Private companies running public services would be held to account

1. The public would have a ‘right to recall’ private companies who are doing a bad job (supported by 88% of the public).

2. Private companies running public services would be transparent about their performance and financial data - as in the public sector (supported by 88% of the public).

3. Private companies running public services would be subject to Freedom Of Information legislation - as in the public sector (48% of the public mistakenly believe this is already the case).

4. The public would be properly consulted about the services they receive through public service contracts.

Labour councillors attack out-sourcing and call for in-house services

No, not Brent Laboiur councillors I'm afraid but there colleagues in Barnet at an Extraordinary Council Meeting last night in a lively debate on a No Confidence motion tabled by the Labour opposition regarding the Council's  One Barnet  programme that will see 70% of services out-sourced.

One after another Labour councillors made the case against out-sourcing and privatisation. They pointed to the inadequacy of private providers, the dangers of bankruptcy that had already hit some providers and therefore the uselessness of 'guarantees' provided by such companies, the use of Council Tax to fund private profit,  the concealment of financial details of deals and the lack of direct democratic accountability via councillors when services are out-sourced. They pointed to the decision to move waste management 'in-house with a stretch' as an example of the right way to go.

Tory Leader Richard Cornelius, who replaced the suspended Brian Coleman, defended the policy and pointed out the number of Labour boroughs, including Brent, who were also out-sourcing.

Despite the absence of some Tory councillors the No Confidence vote was lost, but the arguments in the motion deserve consideration elsewhere:

‘No confidence’ in Barnet’s Conservative Leader and Cabinet

Council believes that this Conservative administration has completely lost its way over the One Barnet Programme.

Council believes the process to outsource 70% of council services in two large contracts under One Barnet has been dogged by a lack of transparency. Scrutiny of One Barnet by elected councillors has been severely compromised by the administration scrapping the dedicated One Barnet Scrutiny Panel, and by preventing administration and opposition councillors outside the Cabinet from having sufficient time to scrutinise detailed financial information for the project – information which has been presented to elected members on blue exempt papers at the beginning of committee meetings, and then taken away at the end of the agenda item. 

Council notes that the One Barnet Programme has so far not made any net savings, and that we are now in the third year of the programme. In fact the One Barnet Programme has actually incurred a net cost for the Council of at least £663,000.

Council further notes that the Leader and Deputy Leader seem to disagree over the appropriateness of the preferred model for the Development and Regulatory Services contract – Joint Venture – and that therefore the project seems to be in complete disarray.

Given the level of risk involved in the procurement of these two enormous One Barnet contracts, NSCSO and DRS, and the gambling of £1 billion of council tax payers’ money that is involved, Council resolves that the Executive Leader be removed from office and that a vote be taken on electing a new Leader who can propose a new way forward for Barnet Council and appoint a new Cabinet.

It was interesting to see an Opposition group instigating a passionate and informed debate, something that is missing in Brent with the Lib Dems often caught out on not doing their homework and lying low as they delay two by-election,   waiting for more popular times. The Tories are of course invisible for months at a time. It is too often left to community groups and campaigns to provide the real opposition.

Brent Executive agrees free schools, academies and privatisation

Brent Executive took a few more strides along the privatisation road this evening.

They agreed to look for free school and academy partners in order to meet the demand for school places and approved school expansions increasing the size of some primary schols to more than 1,000 pupils. Although Cllr Arnold, lead member for children and families, said that this was an 'educational approach'  I fear for young children in such large institutions - particularly those on the autistic spectrum. Andy Donald's report did not mention the Gwenneth Rickus Building, currently the Centre for Staff Development Centre, in Brentfield Road. This was formerly part of Sladebrook High School and will become redundant when the Civic Centre opens next year.  It  may be put on the market along with Brent Town Hall - or perhaps it is ear-marked as a potential free school?

 The Executive  agreed to set up Brent Meanwhile Partnership (see previous blog LINK) which gives further powers to Andy Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects - although Cllr Crane did not mention this in his very brief report which did not do justice to the wider repercussions of the policy..Donald will be delegated  to set up a London wide organisation as well as a local one and will be Brent's representative.

The public are not allowed to see how much of their money the council is going to pay to out-source the facilities management of the Council's entire property portfolio to Europa Facilities Services Ltd in a contact that will run from November until June 30th. Andy Donald's report outlines TUPE procedures for existing staff and says that the contractor has agreed to a staged voluntary redundancy process which he 'believes is acceptable to the GMB'. The staff concerned are older than the council average and have a higher proportion of ethnic minorities.

Following delays in setting up a new management agreement for the Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) the  Executive  agreed to delegate authority ot the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects (Andy Donald - of course)  in consultation with the Director of Legal and Procurement any  subsequent amendments between now and March 2013.

How local firms lose out in procurement process

Spawning frogs Fryent Country Park March 1st

We should soon hear the results of the Council's internal deliberations about the possible privatisation/out-sourcing of the Brent Parks' grounds maintenance service.  The Council have refused to answer my Freedom of Information request about the matter but I hope the results will be subject to meaningful consultation.

If the result is a decision to out-source several issues need consideration. Firstly, such decisions often leave the current workers at a disadvantage. Although they have expertise in the actual job they are unlikely to have it in the arduous and complicated task of putting in a detailed bid at the procurement stage if they decide to make a bid as a group of workers. They may also not be able to give the financial guarantees that a large firm will be able to provide. Large firms, used to procurement, will have the back office expertise to make a bid as well as low pay rates that will undercut an internal bid.

Secondly, we need to ask about the quality of external contractors: their skills and the empathy they have with the local environment.  Brent rightly has great pride in its Green Flag winning parks and particularly the precious Welsh Harp and Fryent Country Park spaces.   Having seen some of the grounds maintenance work done by contractors on our housing estates, as well as some undertaken in the Country Park, I am very concerned that maintenance will be of the 'cut and slash' variety. Rather than pruning and reducing trees sympathetically to encourage balanced regrowth, they will be sawn back. Shrubs will become rectangular and cut back at convenient times for the contractor rather than at the appropriate seasonal time. There is a danger that habitats will not be nurtured and will be subsequently lost.

Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity is one of Brent's priorities and success stories. We must make sure this is not lost in the rush to save money.

Similar issues arise with attempts to use local small firms for building projects in schools. With high levels of unemployment in Brent it is essential that we try and give them work. However they again often lack the back office staff and financial guarantees necessary to meet the procurement demands of Brent Council and contracts instead go to large companies, often multinationals, with workers travelling from outside of Brent. As part of a strategy to combat unemployment in Brent we need to look at  how we can support small building and construction businesses that are part of a community and will want to deliver a good job for that community.