| |
Is snub to private firms a sign of things to come?
• THE decision made by Islington Council to keep the homecare service in-house and rule out privatisation is a most welcome move (Union claims victory in privatisation battle, May 16).
Islington Unison began campaigning against privatisation of the service two years ago when a line in the council budget for 2006 said that the council would “outsource” homecare. In my view a number of factors have influenced this change of policy.
One factor is, of course, the Care UK scandal in which the council’s role in cutting staff terms and conditions in residential homes which had already been privatised has still not been adequately explained.
I would like to thank the Tribune for its continuing coverage of this story. I am sure that the articles and letters you published played no small part in focusing the minds of many councillors as to the likely consequences of privatising homecare.
In addition to this, it can be no coincidence that a new director of social services took up his post just a week before we were told the good news. We hope this signifies a change in terms of the newly-established housing and adult social services directorate and that we can now look forward to a constructive working relationship.
For the last two years this is something we have been denied.
ANDREW BERRY
Deputy branch secretary, Islington Unison
• SOMETIMES I think I cannot win where the Tribune is concerned. Your front-page article last week on Islington Council’s decision to retain its in-house homecare service described it as an “embarrassing U-turn” for the Liberal Democrat administration.
This was not a U-turn. A U-turn is what happened when Labour’s Gordon Brown abolished the 10p tax rate and then changed his mind in the face of opposition and a by-election; or when he got ready for a general election and then got cold feet at the last minute when the opinion polls told him how unpopular he and his Labour Party followers really are. In fact, there have been so many U-turns the government itself has no idea which direction it is going in.
We at the council know exactly where we are going; we have consistently said we will examine all options for the homecare service. We have done precisely that and concluded, after studying the pros and cons of outsourcing, that the service is best off in-house. There is no U-turn here and nothing at all to be embarrassed about.
The trades unions have campaigned vociferously in favour of the decision we have just reached. We have taken into account what they have said and I am grateful to them for the many constructive comments they have made in closed meetings with me. I am glad that we have been able to accommodate them on this occasion.
However, as I said at the council meeting as far back as October 2006, the administration’s job is to balance the interests of staff, council tax-payers and the vulnerable older people we serve. In doing this, we make no bones about putting the interests of the vulnerable older people first.
On this occasion, the best interest of all groups was met by the decision to retain the homecare service in-house. We are not dogmatic about this and have been prepared to outsource other services in the past against union opposition where we thought that was the right decision to improve or modernise the service.
We will continue, without the slightest embarrassment, to put vulnerable older people first and I can promise we will make no U-turns along that path.
CLLR JOHN GILBERT
Liberal Democrat executive member for health and adult social care
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
