(23/01/12) The Council continue to progress their Catalyst Council proposals, in particular within Social Care. During December 2011 the Council arranged road show events so that they could consult with Social Care staff on future service provision within Social Care. At the roads how events 4 options were presented:
1. The Council continues to transform services by downsizing existing in-house social care services such as residential care, home care etc. and developing new models of individual support and extra care via investment in the independent sector or joint services with other Local Authorities or the NHS.
2. The Council considers putting its existing children’s and adult’s in-house provider services out to “tender”.
3. The Council considers setting up an employee owned organisation for the management and running of existing in-house provider services.
4. The Council considers setting up a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC).
However, at staff briefings the Council failed to mention that the Cabinet Report on Catalyst Council, section 5.6 Proposal: Family Services Initiatives – Past, Present and Future makes only one recommendation which is that:-
The Future Provision of Social Care Services is currently under consideration. The project is exploring the potential of setting up a “Local Authority Trading Company” (LATC) for the future provision of social care and is at the stage of estimating implementation costs and developing a schedule of meetings for consultation with staff and trade unions.
Given that this is the Council’s clear preferred option in their cabinet report, it raises a number of serious concerns and questions, the obvious concern being as to how this can be a consultative exercise when the cabinet report points to the fact that it appears to be a done deal? We have written to the council to express our concerns and disappointment that the Council have embarked on a so called consultation exercise on the future service provision of social care without having any meaningful dialogue with UNISON and we have requested an urgent meeting with the Council to discuss this. In addition we have also written to the Council and invited them to answer the following questions:
1. The Cabinet paper quotes Kensington and Chelsea as an example of a trading company in social care. This company – Chelsea Cares – recently collapsed and the Council took the service back in house. What lessons can Wakefield learn from this?
2. Another local authority trading company in social care – Sefton New Directions – recently hit major problems and slashed terms and conditions, and threatened many staff with redundancy. What lessons can Wakefield learn from this?
3. Please provide a copy of the risk register for this project.
4. What exploration has Wakefield done over its powers to charge and trade without the expense of setting up a trading company?
5. What detailed market analysis has Wakefield done for the market for its LATC? What are the principle service areas where it would seek new business?
6. Why has Wakefield not looked at an in-house service improvement plan as a comparator for a trading company?
7. The Cabinet report advocates a two-tier workforce for the trading company, with new starters on worse terms and conditions than ex-Council staff. Does Wakefield agree that this divisive strategy will have a detrimental impact on the quality of service provision, as the last Labour government believed?
8. How secure does Wakefield expect existing staff to feel when their new colleagues are being employed on lower pay and conditions?
9. If the new company wins contracts, then staffs from those contracts will TUPE transfer into the LATC. Will this not simply transfer the employment of existing workers instead of creating new jobs?
10. Will transferred staff be allowed to stay in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS)? (What assessment has been made of the viability of Wakefield’s LGPS if increasing numbers of staff – transferees or new starters, are not paying into the scheme?
11. Will the Council share the business case with UNISON and allow us to comment on it prior to it going to Cabinet?
Given our concerns with the process and lack of trade union involvement, UNISON are looking where we can to work with the Council on this matter. We have already been given assurances by the Council that UNISON would be fully involved in developing any proposals. This is not just commenting on those that have been drawn up. We would particularly want to explore an in-house option, which we do not see as a “do nothing option” or that it would or should lead to major downsizing to existing in-house Social Care Services as referred to under option 1.
We will keep you updated on any response we receive from the Council.
