On this report is the history of the outsourcing of adult care homes to Catalyst. Here is the sorry story, from their own report - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=11105 - and here is what it says
1. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS
1.1 Council, 23 October 2000 (Decision item 62) – approved the selection of Ealing Family Housing Association (now part of the Catalyst Group) to take a transfer of the majority of the Council’s elderly persons residential care homes and day centres on the basis that these would be replaced with modern purpose built facilities and achieve an ongoing revenue saving for the Council from the commencement of the contract.
1.2 Cabinet, 5 November 2002 (Decision item 10) – approved the swap of sites in Claremont Road, Brent Cross NW2 and East Road, Burnt Oak HA8 with Ealing Family Housing Association upon which to develop replacements for the Perryfields and Merrivale elderly persons care homes and day centre.
1.3 Cabinet Resources Committee, 8 August 2004 (Decision item 14) – subject to conditions, agreed:
i. the freehold interest in an appropriate area of land at Claremont Road, NW2 be transferred to Ealing Family Housing Association for the building of a replacement for the Perryfields elderly persons care home and day centre in exchange for the transfer back to the Council of the current Perryfields site at Tyrrel Way; and
ii. the freehold interest in an appropriate area of land at East Road, Burnt Oak HA8 be transferred to Ealing Family Housing Association for the building of a replacement for the Merrivale elderly persons care home and day centre in exchange for the transfer back to the Council of the current Merrivale site at East Road, Burnt Oak.
1.4 Cabinet Resources Committee, 3 September 2007 (Decision item 7) – noted the disagreement with Catalyst in respect of its Deficit Claim and also agreed that the dispute with Catalyst in respect of the Perryfields/Claremont Road and Merrivale/Child Guidance Centre sites swaps agreements, and the Project and Abortive Costs claims arising there from, be referred to arbitration and/or independent expert as appropriate.
1.5 Cabinet Resources Committee, 2 September 2008 (Decision item 16) – noted the action taken by Catalyst to initiate the arbitration procedure and instructed the appropriate Chief Officers to appoint Counsel and other appropriate consultants and that the costs relating to this would be met from reserves.
1.6 Cabinet Resources Committee, 23 April 2009 (Decision item 14) – noted the stage proceedings were at and the amount of money spent in relation to the arbitration.
1.7 Cabinet Resources Committee, 8 December 2009 (Decision item 18 and X4) – noted the stage proceedings were at; the amount of money spent in relation to the arbitration and formally agreed not to offer Catalyst a “drop hands” settlement.
1.8 Cabinet Resources Committee, 17 June 2010 (Decision item X7 ) – noted the stage proceedings were at; the amount of money spent in relation to the
3arbitration and the likely need to renegotiate the Care Home Contract, as well as the retention of Eversheds as legal advisors.
1.9 Cabinet Resources Committee, 19 October 2010 (Decision item 11 and X3) – noted the stage proceedings had reached; that a further hearing was to be held; the estimated cost of the preliminary arbitration award; that a renegotiation strategy was being developed.
1.10 Cabinet Member Delegated Powers Report No 1264, 18 February 2011 – approved the Council’s contribution to Catalyst’s legal costs in respect of the Arbitration.
1.11 Cabinet Resources Committee, 2 March 2011 (Decision item 6) – set out the results and consequences of the arbitration proceedings and initial objectives for a renegotiation of the contract.
1.12 Cabinet Resources Committee, 7 November 2011 – approved the headline agreement reached with Catalyst during contract negotiations.
1.13 Cabinet Resources Committee, 28 February 2012 – approved pricing strategy for older adults registered care.
The key bit of information missing is the bit where Barnet gave Catalyst £8 Million, because Barnet were unable to draw up a contract that protected the taxpayer sufficiently. The grounds for the claim. Catalyst weren't making as much money as they'd hoped.
Last year Legionella bacteria was found in local care homes run by Catalyst. Sadly the contract has no provision for dumping companies which expose our old folk to such risks.
There is a bit in this report which is supposed to say what the risks are. Here is what it says
3. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
3.1 The risks associated with the renegotiation and its consequences have been formally logged in the Adult Social Care Risk Register.
3.2 Whilst agreement has been reached with Catalyst further negotiations are required with The Fremantle Trust in terms of future service provision. These negotiations will be based on the residential care pricing strategy agreed by CRC on 28 February 2012. There is a risk that The Fremantle Trust will be unable to deliver the care services at an acceptable price in which case the contract will need to be terminated and a new care provider procured.
In other words, they won't tell us unless we serve an FOI request on them and ask to see the adult social care risk register. This nonsense has gone on for ten years and yet we still continue with the farce. IS there no Barnet Councillor who can see the risks the local taxpayer is being exposed to? The Council are asking us to believe that they will get it right this time. Do you believe them?