Showing posts with label LATC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LATC. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 September 2012

Barnet Council Local Authority Trading Company hits Financial Difficulties

It appears that the Trading company set up by Barnet Council, Your Choice (Ltd)  has just revealed  it is projecting a deficit for the close of the financial year of £700,000. This is over 3 times the projected deficit forecast in the Business Case. Many local people queried the evidence for the Business Case for setting up the LATC and so this news is, whilst not surprising, is still extremely disappointing.
The Business case reported the following:
 6.33 Savings
6.34 There is a requirement within the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for Adults Social Care to make a £200,000 saving in 2012/13 in respect of the Local Authority Trading Company. The analysis above shows that the Local Authority Trading Company will not generate this saving until 2013/14, so Adults Social Care will fund this cost for 2012/13, but will also make a greater surplus from 2014/15 onwards.
We ask if the £700,000 predicted shortfall solely refers to the LATC losses with additional £200,000 savings expected from adults social services as required under the Medium Terms Financial Strategy? Many people doubted that Barnet Council had the experience or business acumen to set up and successfully manage such an operation.It seems our fears have been justified. What lessons can we learn with regards to the One Barnet program.

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Guest blog - Your Choice means no choice in Barnet by John Sullivan

By John Sullivan,
(Hear John Sullivan tell his story in A Tale of Two Barnets - http://ataleoftwobarnets.yolasite.com/)


As promised I am back with part 2 of my comments on the forming of the" Your Choice Barnet" Local Authority Trading Company (LATC), formed in my opinion to make a profit from the disabled within our community  which I have already described as perverse and sick minded. I am sorry, it is a bit long winded, but if you take the time and trouble to read it through, I am sure you will understand how difficult and risky it is for me to provide a more abbreviated version which could so easily miss a major issue for some or inadvertently misrepresent the truth which I have no wish to do.
I also previously explained this was such a very complex issue that affects such a wide range of different disabled groups in different ways, the story would have to be told in stages to truly get the message across, so I am starting with the TSG " Parents Voice " formation meeting that I chaired on Tuesday 7th March.
Just to explain, TSG is a group of parents which includes my wife and  myself with an Adult son or daughter with a learning disability and some with an additional physical disability.  Some parents have 2 children in this category. Some fought a campaign approximately 5 years ago to avoid their children being forced out into the community, along with many of their more able bodied peers. Needless to say many benefitted from this programme, and some were  not justifiable candidates for being forced out into the  Care in the Community  programme . However the TSG service user children or wards  fell between a rock and hard place, they were not disabled enough to require one on one care, but neither were they or are they capable of managing in the community on their own. Therefore they were not considered viable candidates to participate in the Care in the Community Programme ( I think that is what the programme  was called ). Which begs the question, as none of the TSG groups children or wards  have improved over this 5 year period, if being forced out into the community was seen just five years ago as an unacceptable destination for this group then why is it an acceptable destination for them now? Does the profitability of a private company that was not an area for consideration  5 years ago, now take precedent on all decisions now rather than quality of support services and the peace of mind of parents.
After a long hard fought battle with the  London Borough of Barnet (LBB), it was finally conceded that yes this group did fall between a rock and a hard place, and as a consequence a new centre was purpose built and leased to LBB to meet the needs of this small group and It was called "THE SPACE" and it is in Edgware (and now re-named Community Space). With the promise that this would be the long term answer to the fears of parents, that promise was made just about 5 years ago and in order to force through the LATC and maximise the profitability of that LATC that promise has been  broken big time. This LATC was sold to us on a false premise without meaningful consultation or choice or alternative, and the " Putting The Community First " 2010 Autumn edition with the heading " More Choices " was the presentation to TSG parents of what the formation of the LATC would mean for them and their child. It is a presentation document that is achieved by obfuscation as so many LBB responses to questions are today, it was described to me the other day as " a lesson in lying " which sounds about right.
On page 6 of this document headed " changes to services run by the council " it says . The law says that people cannot use their direct payments to buy services that are run by the council. Which is a statement open for debate and being considered by lawyers as we speak.

It also states quite specifically that "We need to start a new work place. This will be called a Local Authority Trading Company , and most importantly it goes on to say. " This Will Mean That Services Can Stay The Same  Just The Logo Is Different" if you are happy with the services " now", then you can stay and you will be able use your direct payments to buy these services.
The reality is the children and wards of  the TSG group  are slowly and definitively being evicted from their purpose built day centre, and dumped into church halls and in some cases rooms at the rear or the side of churches. The community of their peers where like all of us they once enjoyed the benefits of  social cohesion on an equal basis is now denied them. To cut a long sad and tragic story in many ways short, that I have previously visited on this guest blog . The services now provided  cannot be described in any way shape or form as it was in the Autumn 2010 edition as  "This Will Mean That These Services Can Stay The Same Just The Logo Is Different ".
                                                                            
LBB insist and continue to insist that all parents were meaningfully consulted and offered  choices and alternatives to the formation of this LATC hence presumably the name of the LATC " Your Choice Barnet" .So I asked the parents attending the meeting the following questions to which they responded with a show of hands. I use the word privatisation for simplicity rather than LATC.
1,Do you believe you were consulted on this privatisation in a meaningful and honest way.
Answer Every hand was raised to " No".
2,Do you believe you were misled regarding the promised outcomes of this privatisation.
Answer, Every hand was raised to " Yes ".
4, ( A ) Do you believe the changes have improved your peace of mind regarding provision of support services or ( B)  has your peace of mind been adversely affected.
Answer, Every hand was raised to "B".
5, Are you in any way concerned about the long term future provision of 5 day per week support services for your child / ward.
Answer, Every hand was raised to " yes "
6, Some say we were offered "No Choice" or " alternative ", so why is the LATC called " Your Choice Barnet ".  Q, Were you offered any alternative or choice ( this is a very important question )
Answer, All hands were raised to " No ".
7, Are you concerned that the Community Space facility will not be available to your child/ward in the near or foreseeable future.
Answer, All hands were raised to " Yes ".
8, Do you support the removal from the Community Space facility into rooms in churches.
Answer, All hands were raised to " No ".
9,Do you believe that a community hub such as the Community Space facility, that affords social cohesion with their own group of peers is a vital need and a human right of your child/ward and should be reinstated.
Answer, All hands were raised to " Yes ".
10, Do you believe that all church hall/room facility agreements should be scrapped and your children/wards returned to Community Space, and it be returned to a facility catering exclusively for people with LD.
Answer, All hands were raised to " Yes "
14, Do you believe the changes offer ( A)" More Choice as Promised or ( B ) "Less Choice ".
Answer, All hands were raised to "B"
And finally to avoid any ambiguity I asked   the following question 15.
15. Just for clarity and to avoid any ambiguity. Were you offered any other choice or alternative at any time during the run up to and the implementation to the changes to an LATC provider of services.
Answer, All hands were raised to a resounding  verbal and physical " No ".
From the beginning of this process towards the formation of this LATC I have repeatedly made it clear to the powers that be, that changes of this magnitude that affects so many already complicated lives in such a variance of different ways should be consulted on in an all inclusive manner at an open and all inclusive meeting. To ensure that everybody is aware of any benefits and also any pitfalls. This open and inclusive meeting has been repeatedly denied from day 1, and the powers that be even refused to support the distribution of invitations to all those affected to this 7th March meeting the terms of which were stated clearly on the invitations and a copy of which was made available to them. Which was a meeting for parents and friends only, and no invitation was afforded to this meeting for any representative  of LBB. In order that parents/carers could for the very first time in an all inclusive meeting speak openly and honestly without fear of reprisal. This comment may sound a little extreme, however the tragic reality is that one set of parents who attended and whose child is being  seriously adversely affected by the changes, asked not to be named because they fear reprisals against their child. One of the very reasons I refused the distribution aid from LBB or the LATC to this meeting. The support they did offer was once again on their terms, and denied an all inclusive meeting with parents/carers without the restriction of an LBB representative being present which is exactly what the invitation outlined.

I have often wondered why the powers that be have done everything in their power to stop an all inclusive and open meeting on the subject of the formation of this LATC being called for the TSG group, and I think the answers to the question put to this meeting spell it out very clearly. So when you read the literature being issued by LBB or the LATC about Meaningful Consultation and Choice, then please remind yourself of the answers from this group of parents/ carers who have many years of experience at the coal face and ask yourself this question. Who is Lying the parents , LBB or the  architects and forcers through of the formation of the LATC, more importantly who in your opinion benefits from these changes. The forcers through,? the disabled children or wards of the TSG group along with all disabled people in Barnet ?,or the coffers of LBB to the detriment of the disabled in Barnet ?.

I hope to be meeting soon with another affected group soon along with a follow up meeting with the TSG group, to further attempt to get to the truth about who benefits from the formation of the rather questionably named " Your Choice Barnet " LATC. I am therefore hoping that Roger will invite me back at a later date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John Sullivan is a parent carer for his daughter Susan and campaigner for disabled rights in the London Borough of Barnet. Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye.

Sunday, 26 February 2012

Guest Blog - Local Authority Trading Companies and Conflicts of Interest - by John Sullivan

By John Sullivan,

Enid Blyton gave us the Famous Five and the incompetent Barnet council driven by dogma and ideology have given us the Fabulous Five bloggers. Without the crass behaviour on so many fronts, the fabulous five bloggers that look out for the interests of the people of Barnet,( which incidentally is what the Barnet councillors are supposed to do ) would probably not exist. They continue to expose the dodgy goings on that are being carried out in our name.  Without them we would not have a clue at to what the council were up to up to and just how incompetent they are (so well done the Fab Five). As stated by Roger in his recent blog. Barnet Council is like a ship heading for the rocks, the problem is all of us in Barnet are likely to drown under the potential financial disaster and destruction of services we will almost definitely experience due to this mania to privatise at all costs.

 Barnet councillors like to be known as the Ryan Air Council, the pathfinders in modern ways to run councils, sadly they have only earned the right to be called the Laurel & Hardy council.  Like this famous pair they go from blunder to blunder and error to error driven on by stupidity and incompetence, added to the mix the Barnet councillors  hunger for dogma & ideology and a mania to privatise. Whilst repeatedly ignoring the siren voices of anyone, that raises a genuine concern with their direction of travel.

The most recent matter to be exposed by the Fab Five is council workers forming a company in order to direct education contracts that are being privatised by their bosses to line their own pockets. The Fab Five have exposed this behaviour on the basis of "conflict of interest " on the part of these council employees,  who have been suspended whilst the truth or otherwise of their alleged activities are investigated.  Without this privatisation mania , dogma & ideology that is at best a gamble and at worst a potential disaster for vital support services in Barnet, I would not be writing this blog.
In his blog Roger points out he had no idea about the new LATC that will cater for many disabled people in Barnet, and questions privatisation as a concept . I wish to raise both the issue of privatisation along with the issue of "conflict of interest " where it might possibly be related to the forming of this LATC.

Mania for privatisation . How do I define it?  As the parent of a daughter with learning difficulties ( she has down's syndrome ), I find it immoral and perverse, that on the one hand you have a councillor namely loud mouth Coleman abusing his office and publicly denigrating disabled people in Barnet. Because in his opinion and presumably that of the council he does not think that "THESE PEOPLE" ( the disabled ) have the right to the provision of transport to get them from  A to B, a service they have enjoyed since year dot. But at the same time he and the council feel it is perfectly right and proper to form an LATC , to make a profit from the disabled.  The only possible way that profit can be made from the disabled is by the Destruction of Disability Support Services, therefore whilst destroying the lives of many disabled people in the name of profit is considered a moral aim, the long enjoyed provision of transport is deemed immoral and perverse.
As the parent of a disabled daughter I find the desire to make a profit from the misfortune of the most  vulnerable people in our community, along with the destruction of their services to maximise that profitability to be sick, perverse and immoral . Therefore the driving force behind it is greed , avarice, dogma, ideology, and a mania for privatisation and that is how I define this particular aspect of privatisation the aims of this particular LATC and I will tell you why .
Conflict of interest, " how do you define it "
Roger asks five questions  about this LATC, but are they the only questions I think not. There are many more questions that need to be answered with regard to the privatisation and the destruction of support services for disabled people at the altar of profit. There are many questions to be asked about the manner in which this privatisation was forced through, and who benefits from forcing this privatisation through. Whether or not anyone doing the forcing and the driving had a possible "conflict of interests" ,or have or will benefit personally from their efforts currently or once this LATC becomes fully privatised which for me as a layman constitutes a possible or potential " conflict of interest ".

This is to important an issue to attempt to cover it all in one blog, so I will work on the five questions posed by Roger and invite any and all contributions in order that my response to the five questions posed will be based on a broad section of opinion rather than the  dogma, ideology and the ignoring of public opinion that is the hallmark of Barnet Council. I am currently engaging in meaningful consultation with others that are affected by the forming of this LATC before I respond, naturally the concept of meaningful consultation is an alien phenomenon where Barnet council are concerned it is something they preach but blatantly fail to engage in.

You also have a "choice" as to whether or not you wish to engage with me in my search for bona fide responses to the five questions posed.  Choice being another concept that is alien to Barnet Council yet another concept they preach but fail to engage in, they afforded no alternatives therefore no " choice ", yet believe it or not they had the neck to call this new LATC " Your Choice Barnet ".

I cannot attempt to cover the enormity of the volume of questions being raised and the detrimental impact it has had and continues to have on so many disabled people,( I hasten to add not all) in the run up to the forming of this particular LATC in one blog. It would be to the detriment of disabled people in Barnet, and unlike Cllr Coleman  and his fellow councillors. I am not in the habit of doing anything that is detrimental to the well being of disabled people in Barnet. I do not see them as an unacceptable drain on council resources as certain senior councillors clearly do . Keep watching this space, because this is the first in a series which aims to explore these questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest Bloggers are always welcome at the Barnet Eye. Blogs can be submitted via the email link in the Top right hand corner of the blog. John Sullivan is a Barnet resident and carer for his daughter who is an adult with learning difficulties. 

You can see John tell his story in the forthcoming film - A Tale of Two Barnets (click to visit film website) which will be premiered at the Phoenix Cinema on Monday March 19th at 6pm Tickets are £1.



Purely for clarity, the questions John Refers to are posed in this blog -