Agenda item

In accordance with the Constitution’s Petition Scheme as set out in the Public Participation Rules, the Committee considered a petition which had received in excess of 2,000 signatures.  The petition was requesting that the One Barnet Programme be stopped and that a referendum be held. 

The Lead Petitioner, Ms Janet Maddison, addressed the Committee and highlighted the concerns that she and local residents had with the One Barnet Programme.  She requested that the Committee take into account the following:

·         That a number of local authorities had recently abandoned plans to outsource services to the private sector

·         Some authorities that were involved in outsourcing arrangements were taking steps to bring services back in house; and

·         Residents were concerned that local democratic accountability would be reduced when services were outsourced to private sector providers.

She requested that the Committee make representations to the Cabinet to stop the One Barnet Programme and hold a referendum on the issue.

The Chairman clarified that the Committee had no power to call a referendum, only to make recommendations to the Cabinet Members via the officer that had been called to give account.  A Member highlighted the full Council had already considered a request for a referendum at Council on 11^th September 2012 and had voted against it.

Andrew Travers, the Deputy Chief Executive, was in attendance to respond to the issues raised.  Mr Travers outlined that the One Barnet Programme had commenced in 2008 and that there had been a number of decisions made in relation to individual projects since then.  He emphasised that this was a period of significant challenge for public services.  Whilst local authority budgets were being reduced between 30-50%, residents expectations of public services were increasing.  He added that as part of the One Barnet Programme, multiple options for service delivery had been considered with each option progressed on a case by case basis.  Detailed options appraisals had been considered which took into account financial and non-financial benefits.  He added that change of this scale was challenging and that risks required careful management.  The Committee were informed that a variety of approaches service delivery had been taken, including in-house transformation, shared services, local authority trading companies and outsourcing. 

The Committee questioned whether 10 year contracts would be sufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances and external influences.  Mr Travers advised Members that contractors were considered to be partners that would assist the council in managing changing circumstances. He added that there were clear commercial terms in the contract which included contract variations to deal with changing circumstances. 

Members noted that aims of private sector companies were different from those of the council and questioned how these differences would be reconciled.  The Committee were advised that detailed contract specifications and pay/performance mechanisms would ensure that contractors delivered against terms.   

The Committee questioned whether officers considered that adequate consultation had taken place with residents on the One Barnet Programme.  Mr Travers reported that consultation had taken place in respect of the Council’s overall plans and in respect of specific service changes.

Referring to One Barnet projects that had recently gone live, Mr Travers reported the following:

·         Officers were satisfied with the implementation of the Legal Services Shared Service project with the London Borough of Harrow; and

·         That there had been some issues with the Parking Services contract which were being addressed with the contractor. 

The Committee highlighted the issues that the Council had faced with the Catalyst/Freemantle contract.  In response, Mr Travers advised the Committee that these issues would be avoided through the robust competitive procurement procedures being followed and utilisation of expert advice.

Referring to the possible joint venture for delivery of the Development and Regulatory Services contract, the Committee were informed that it would be a Member decision as to which option to proceed with at the conclusion of the competitive dialogue process.

The Committee commented that the One Public Sector approach with had underpinned the original Future Shape vision as articulated in 2008 had not come through in implementation of the One Barnet Programme. 

Responding to a question from the Committee, Mr Travers reported that for large outsourcing contracts, provisions around contract variations and performance monitoring were standard.  Members highlighted that private sector companies often recovered against their initial low costs through contract variations.  Mr Travers emphasised that the council were going through a robust procurement process which would result in a rigorous and robust contract.  He added that effective contract management would be required to protect the council’s position throughout the contract lifetime. 

The Committee highlighted the impact on the borough of outsourcing 70% of council staff through outsourcing arrangements.  Members questioned whether the council had taken on board the lessons learnt by other authorities who had experienced difficulties with outsourcing arrangements or abandoned outsourcing plans.   Mr Travers informed the Committee that local authorities routinely contracted with the private sector, adding that the council had learnt from others experiences and that officers had visited other authorities to inform the procurement process. 

The Committee questioned the feasibility of the council delivering the thin-client model which would result in the New Support and Customer Services Organisation managing contractual relationships on behalf of the council. 

Members highlighted the risk of the council loosing the public sector ethos by outsourcing a significant proportion of services.  Whilst the council might have pay/performance mechanisms to address underperformance, issues with service delivery could have a significant impact on local residents.  Mr Travers emphasised that service failure was possible in all types of service delivery models, adding that performance issues would be addressed through effective contract management. 

Responding to a question on the cost and savings of the One Barnet Programme, Mr Travers reported that annual savings of £5.7 million had been achieved and these were incorporated in to the base budget.  Estimated savings over the lifetime of the One Barnet Programme were £111 million.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Lead Petitioner responded to the issues raised and the responses received.  Ms Maddison raised concerns regarding the management of the Parking Service and Implementation Partner contracts and the council’s ability to manage large multi-million pound outsourcing contracts.  

Councillor Alison Moore moved a motion to request that the Committee support making a reference to Cabinet (via the officer called to give account) that a referendum take place on the One Barnet Programme, as outlined in the petition text detailed at paragraph 9.2 of the committee report.  The motion was duly seconded.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.   

RESOLVED:

1.            That the Committee requests the Deputy Chief Executive notes the petition, the concerns of the petitioners and the reservations of the Committee (as outlined in the preamble above) and refers these representations to the responsible Cabinet Member(s) for response.

2.            That the Committee requests that the responsible Cabinet Member(s) consider the concerns of the petitioners and the reservations of the Committee and provide a formal response at next meeting of the Committee on 20 November 2012. 

3.            That the Deputy Chief Executive provides the Committee with a details of all local authorities that had been visited by Barnet during the One Barnet Programme.