Last week, we reported on the front page how forty plus employees of Home Care B&NES could lose their jobs because B&NES Council had decided to take away their company's contract. In many instances, this was just like B&NES making its own staff redundant as B&NES Council had forced many of the staff, who face losing their jobs, to leave the Council and move into the private sector. The terms and conditions of existing staff were to be respected, they were to continue to enjoy their salaries and Local Authority conditions of employment. B&NES says in a sanitised briefing note to all Councillors, many of whom would not have been around when these former employees were privatised, 'responsibility for the future of the staff affected by the end of the contract lies with Home Care B&NES.' The Council knows that redundancy requires a statutory period of notice and effective consultation, which would not be possible in the timetable now being implemented.
It was as long ago as October 2011 that Councillors were told that it was likely the contract would end. At the time, it was said that any transfer of services would result in a transfer of staff in accordance with TUPE and on the more favourable Local Authority terms. Transferring the work to another provider would be financially more favourable than negotiating a new contract with the company, officials said at the time. Councillors, in their briefing note, were not given this information.
In October 2011, Councillors were assured by their officials that: "Commissioners are planning on the basis that the contract with Agincare will cease on 31st March 2013." The redistribution of the hours amongst the other four main providers was considered achievable. Analysis of any potential TUPE implications would need to be undertaken in sufficent time to enable a smooth transfer of both the service and the associated staff to take place. Plans were to be risk-assessed and reviewed regularly over the next eighteen months.
Such noble words seem inconsistent with the current rushed situation.
We print below information we have received from B&NES Home Care and UNISON.
Home Care B&NES (Agincare) responded to B&NES Council's announcement: "We are extremely disappointed in the way the Council has handled this situation, despite months and months of attempts to negotiate a way forward. The Council's decision to change commissioning arrangements comes only seven weeks before the contract with Home Care B&NES has been confirmed to now terminate.
"We are very concerned how the future arrangements for the care of 94 vulnerable clients can be properly assessed and agreed in this short period of time.
"Furthermore, we are incredibly disappointed that the Council chose to make a public announcement about the future provision of the services without consultation with us or the unions representing our staff.
"We are currently reviewing what the announcement means for Home Care B&NES in respect of its future, following the loss of such a significant contract and the substantial job losses this situation may create for the long-serving ex-Council members of staff."
B&NES Council responded by saying, "Appropriately qualified staff from Sirona (a B&NES/NHS QUANGO) will be undertaking the individual reviews and arranging for those individuals to receive home care from an alternative provider. This is a statutory function, which Sirona undertakes on behalf of the Council. A letter was due to be sent out on Friday, 15th February, to all service users, explaining arrangements for these reviews to be undertaken and services from another home care provider are to be arranged.
"The purpose behind the review is to ensure that every client receives continuity of care between transferring from Homecare B&NES to an alternative provider. The care that they receive will be entirely in line with their assessed needs." Or, to put it another way, this is not an attempt by the Council to cut care to save money.
The trade union involved was anxious too, saying: "UNISON is very concerned that the contract between B&NES Council and Home Care B&NES will be coming to an end at the end of March. This will affect not only the clients who receive care in their homes, but also our dedicated members who work hard to provide a high quality homecare service to these clients.
"Over the past year, UNISON has been communicating with both B&NES Council and Home Care B&NES to ascertain who the new provider will be.
"Unfortunately, the Council has failed to secure a new provider and we believe that the best option would be for the Council to directly employ these home care staff, therefore ensuring continuity of care for vulnerable clients and job security for dedicated staff," said Jane Carter, Branch Secretary.
The Council responded saying: "UNISON are suggesting the Council should employ directly the home care staff. The Council no longer provides adult social care having transferred the delivery of adult social care services to alternative providers. Also, the Council is not registered to provide care services, so could not lawfully become the provider of home care to the affected service users – the provision of personal care services are regulated by the Care Quality Commission and providers of regulated services need to have the appropriate registration. The process for registering to be a provider of regulated services is lengthy and cannot be shortcut."
ED: As for the last point, the Council has had sixteen months to plan this changeover, and if it had planned properly, this is an option it could have at least considered instead of relying on the lame excuse it is now too late.
It is incredibly difficult to understand why something so important as the care of 94 vulnerable adults is apparently all being done at the last minute by B&NES and Sirona.
This was debated by Councillors on Friday, 7th October 2011. The report to Councillors states: 'The Panel is recommended to:
a) Note the performance of each of the Domiciliary Care Strategic Partners;
b) Note the likelihood that, by mutual agreement, the Council's current contract with Agincare will not continue beyond the initial five-year term and the options for the future provision of services currently provided by Agincare.'
The minutes record that the report was introduced by Sarah Shatwell and the panel asked the following questions/made these points:
How would the TUPE transfer work for individual staff members?
The Panel also stressed that the service users want to see, and get the service, from the same people/staff.
Sarah Shatwell replied that the analysis of the delivered hours to individual users will be done and according to results, it is likely that TUPE would apply to particular staff members. This would be in the interest of continuity of care. It was RESOLVED to note the report.
More than twelve months later, the analysis of needs has yet to be done by Sirona, after all, how could it be done before these 94 vulnerable clients had been contacted to say they were to be reassessed.
BUT, the Council has already decided the Agincare staff are not to be TUPE'd over in spite of its pious words: "this would be in the interests of continity of care."
The briefing to Councillors says: 'This assessment process is not being carried out to reduce the level of support provided. It is to update our understanding of the needs of each individual, ensure a smooth transfer to an appropriate service provider (or to a personal budget if this is preferred) and to make sure that each individual and their family or carer is aware of the process of change.'
Decisions were taken over sixteen months ago and appear not to have been properly actioned until very recently. Did the Council imagine the situation would sort itself out, perhaps by care users opting for personal budgets in large numbers? Why, on such a serious issue, did Cabinet Councillors and Councillors on the Overview and Scrutiny Panel responsible for this area of work not insist on update reports on the decisions they made.
Conservative Councillors, usually more than happy to attack Lib-Dem failures, are strangely silent.
The Labour Councillors on B&NES have said they are very concerned about the vulnerable clients facing big changes. They believe this is a deplorable consequence of inappropriate outsourcing of Council services.
This situation begs the question: are Councillors in control at B&NES or do officers, with their own agendas, make all the policy and run rings around the lay Councillors?