Barnet residents say they were not consulted over their council's plan to outsource services
Last week it was announced that Barnet council would push forward with a controversial outsourcing scheme after successfully defending a judicial review claim from a disabled pensioner. The One Barnet scheme will see the council give two contracts worth millions to Capita who will run back room and frontline council services for the next 10 years.
Hannah Fearn, contributing editor of the Local Leaders network, wrote an article saying the people of Barnet can make their voices heard on this decision at the ballot box next year. This triggered a lot of responses from Barnet residents who say One Barnet flies in the face of local democracy.
*Barbara Jacobson: 'How can Capita provide the same standard of services for less money than a council'*
Maria Nash's legal challenge was brought too late because, like most residents, she is not a legal expert and actually believed the councillors who declared that no decision had been made. What a lesson for our society: politicians can overcome the law simply by misleading their constituents.
Of course One Barnet is ideologically driven. While unions and residents have offered alternatives, this morally bankrupt, spendthrift council has compounded any budget loss by spending nearly £9m on consultants, when they had budgeted only £2m. Now it proposes cutting the pay of coach escorts for children with special needs by 33%, down to about £5,800, while hiring a new director for over £110,000.
How can Capita, which has to make profits from delivering services, provide the same standard of those services for less money than a local authority, which has only to break even? By moving jobs far out of the area to places where the workers are paid less and have poorer terms and conditions, by cutting the number of staff employed to deliver those services, and by cutting the services themselves.
All residents will suffer. Staff who live locally will either be forced to move far away from the borough or be made redundant. It will be difficult for all of them to find another job and if they become long-term unemployed, they may have to depend on benefits and will no longer pay full council tax, costing the council money it hasn't budgeted. Local shops and businesses will be hit, too, because these people will have less disposable income to spend.
This high-risk programme was decided by only a few councillors, overriding the rights of the entire electorate. These part-timers are poorly equipped to understand the contracts and to make sure that they have watertight safeguards. They rely on lawyers and officers to reassure them. Yet Barnet council's record on privatization is a string of failures. In one case alone they paid out £10m in penalties and costs to a contractor that failed to make its predicted profit. That was for a single-service contract, so imagine what can happen with a complex, multi-service contract lasting 10 years.
Barbara Jacobson works for the Barnet Alliance for Public Services
*Roger Tichborne: 'There is a cast iron case that One Barnet is dangerous'*
Anyone living in Barnet, who is in any way associated with the campaign to stop the One Barnet program, would have read Hannah Fearn's article for the Local Leaders Network with complete incredulity. What has occurred in Barnet is not good for local democracy. The High Court and the Court of Appeal found that Barnet council had completely failed in their duty to consult the local electorate.
The Conservative party circumvented the whole process of democratic scrutiny by failing to mention One Barnet in its election material in 2010, restricting scrutiny of the process, deeming virtually all documentation relating to the projects as "commercially sensitive" and refusing to disclose them. They also banned discussion of One Barnet at local area forum meetings, misled people that it was only a few back office functions that would change and misrepresented projected savings, including new forms of revenue and higher charges, as real savings.
The stifling of debate was so overbearing that one conservative councillor, Sury Khatri , emailed his colleagues to point out that there was no democratic mandate for the program, because they had neglected to mention it in the election material. If we don't like One Barnet it is true that we can vote out the councillors who presided over the project, but the people of Barnet cannot get their council back. The contracts are legally binding, last for ten years and the in-house departments have been destroyed.
Since the true nature of the One Barnet program became apparent, there have only been two opportunities to express any form of democratic response. The first of these was the Greater Local Authority elections, where Brian Coleman, a leading cabinet member in the Barnet council regime responsible for the scheme, saw a 20,000 vote majority turned into a 20,000 loss. In the next, Labour took the previously ultra-safe Brunswick Park ward from the Tories.
We welcome any debate about One Barnet, as we believe we have made a cast iron case that it is dangerous, risky, reckless and undemocratic.
Roger Tichborne blogs for the Barnet Eye.
*More views *
It is simply untrue to say that One Barnet is the beginning of a new era in local government. Such wholescale privatisation is out of step with government policy, which favours a more pragmatic and varied approach to service provision. And the ease with which Capita was accommodated in Barnet, thanks to the newly defined law on consultation, is now unlikely to be repeated elsewhere. Our loss is the future gain of communities all around the country — but what a price we will pay.
Theresa Musgrove is a resident of Barnet, an activist and writer, creator of the Broken Barnet blog.
• What do you think? Email sarah.marsh@theguardian.com if you want to contribute an article to this debate.
*Not already a member? **Join us now** for more comment, analysis and the latest job opportunities in local government.* Reported by guardian.co.uk 2 hours ago.
Last week it was announced that Barnet council would push forward with a controversial outsourcing scheme after successfully defending a judicial review claim from a disabled pensioner. The One Barnet scheme will see the council give two contracts worth millions to Capita who will run back room and frontline council services for the next 10 years.
Hannah Fearn, contributing editor of the Local Leaders network, wrote an article saying the people of Barnet can make their voices heard on this decision at the ballot box next year. This triggered a lot of responses from Barnet residents who say One Barnet flies in the face of local democracy.
*Barbara Jacobson: 'How can Capita provide the same standard of services for less money than a council'*
Maria Nash's legal challenge was brought too late because, like most residents, she is not a legal expert and actually believed the councillors who declared that no decision had been made. What a lesson for our society: politicians can overcome the law simply by misleading their constituents.
Of course One Barnet is ideologically driven. While unions and residents have offered alternatives, this morally bankrupt, spendthrift council has compounded any budget loss by spending nearly £9m on consultants, when they had budgeted only £2m. Now it proposes cutting the pay of coach escorts for children with special needs by 33%, down to about £5,800, while hiring a new director for over £110,000.
How can Capita, which has to make profits from delivering services, provide the same standard of those services for less money than a local authority, which has only to break even? By moving jobs far out of the area to places where the workers are paid less and have poorer terms and conditions, by cutting the number of staff employed to deliver those services, and by cutting the services themselves.
All residents will suffer. Staff who live locally will either be forced to move far away from the borough or be made redundant. It will be difficult for all of them to find another job and if they become long-term unemployed, they may have to depend on benefits and will no longer pay full council tax, costing the council money it hasn't budgeted. Local shops and businesses will be hit, too, because these people will have less disposable income to spend.
This high-risk programme was decided by only a few councillors, overriding the rights of the entire electorate. These part-timers are poorly equipped to understand the contracts and to make sure that they have watertight safeguards. They rely on lawyers and officers to reassure them. Yet Barnet council's record on privatization is a string of failures. In one case alone they paid out £10m in penalties and costs to a contractor that failed to make its predicted profit. That was for a single-service contract, so imagine what can happen with a complex, multi-service contract lasting 10 years.
Barbara Jacobson works for the Barnet Alliance for Public Services
*Roger Tichborne: 'There is a cast iron case that One Barnet is dangerous'*
Anyone living in Barnet, who is in any way associated with the campaign to stop the One Barnet program, would have read Hannah Fearn's article for the Local Leaders Network with complete incredulity. What has occurred in Barnet is not good for local democracy. The High Court and the Court of Appeal found that Barnet council had completely failed in their duty to consult the local electorate.
The Conservative party circumvented the whole process of democratic scrutiny by failing to mention One Barnet in its election material in 2010, restricting scrutiny of the process, deeming virtually all documentation relating to the projects as "commercially sensitive" and refusing to disclose them. They also banned discussion of One Barnet at local area forum meetings, misled people that it was only a few back office functions that would change and misrepresented projected savings, including new forms of revenue and higher charges, as real savings.
The stifling of debate was so overbearing that one conservative councillor, Sury Khatri , emailed his colleagues to point out that there was no democratic mandate for the program, because they had neglected to mention it in the election material. If we don't like One Barnet it is true that we can vote out the councillors who presided over the project, but the people of Barnet cannot get their council back. The contracts are legally binding, last for ten years and the in-house departments have been destroyed.
Since the true nature of the One Barnet program became apparent, there have only been two opportunities to express any form of democratic response. The first of these was the Greater Local Authority elections, where Brian Coleman, a leading cabinet member in the Barnet council regime responsible for the scheme, saw a 20,000 vote majority turned into a 20,000 loss. In the next, Labour took the previously ultra-safe Brunswick Park ward from the Tories.
We welcome any debate about One Barnet, as we believe we have made a cast iron case that it is dangerous, risky, reckless and undemocratic.
Roger Tichborne blogs for the Barnet Eye.
*More views *
It is simply untrue to say that One Barnet is the beginning of a new era in local government. Such wholescale privatisation is out of step with government policy, which favours a more pragmatic and varied approach to service provision. And the ease with which Capita was accommodated in Barnet, thanks to the newly defined law on consultation, is now unlikely to be repeated elsewhere. Our loss is the future gain of communities all around the country — but what a price we will pay.
Theresa Musgrove is a resident of Barnet, an activist and writer, creator of the Broken Barnet blog.
• What do you think? Email sarah.marsh@theguardian.com if you want to contribute an article to this debate.
*Not already a member? **Join us now** for more comment, analysis and the latest job opportunities in local government.* Reported by guardian.co.uk 2 hours ago.