Haringey Council just gets worse and worse. This latest is jaw-dropping. The Government has been granting money to local authorities to help with schools buildings – ‘Building Schools for the Future’. It is a good program as so many schools have dilapidated buildings and no local authority would have the money to renew or repair to really make those schools up to date, modern with a clean, good feel. I think the environment for learning is very important – so very much welcomed this approach.
Now Haringey received something like £214 million for this program. Yesterday we found out that they spent £24 million or thereabouts on external consultants. To be fair – some of the money went on architects’ fees – which may be legitimate – but to spend 10% of the amount granted on external consultants is way out of order. The guidelines recommend 3% on consultants. So – needless to say – I will be making enquiries as to just what on earth Haringey Council has been doing. They have always been appalling at procurement – and almost every PFI deal they have negotiated has been dreadful for Haringey and very good for the developer! Robert Gorrie, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Haringey Council (who is a very experienced businessman) will be demanding to see the breakdowns and the figures. Given he is likely to be Council Leader if the LibDems win the Council from its 40 years of Labour misrule in next May’s elections – he is very, very concerned about the finances.
One thing concerned me though, was the newspapers focus on what part Sharon Shoesmith may have played in this. She was Director of Education – but how much procurement involved her I am not sure. It needs looking into – but whilst I believed that she should lose her job because she was in the accountable position in Baby Peter’s case – she has lost her job. I don’t think she should come in for a battering on everything to do with education in Haringey – and in fact – she had a very good reputation in terms of her education role. It was the child protection and social services side wherein the problems lay.
Lynne Featherstone 
Well, we were told PFI was a very good thing because it would bring in “private sector know-how”, ending all that “bloated bureaucracy” we know is endemic in local government, and would save money by being oh-so-much efficient, because it involved competition and all that.
When I was a councillor I found it difficult to speak out against it, because if you did so you were accused of being some sort of dinosaur who wanted to go back to the bad old days of socialist style in-house work, which was obviously not private sector so obviously bad an inefficient. Plus you got tied up with these incredibly complex structures, and effectively you were told “No councillor, don’t worry your little mind about this, we have it all under control, it’s modern, it’s private sector, if you don’t understand it it’s because you’re an old-fashioned sort who doesn’t understand how modern business runs”.
Well, what do we find out now? It was all about smooth-talking salesmen extracting their fat fees. No doubt this £24 million on consultants was sold like the rest as absolutely essential and modern and it would cut costs in the long run because of their private-sector know-how.
Anyway, are you telling me £24 million pound went through the council budget and no-one knew about it until now? Aren’t there committees and things which have to agree budgets and expenditures? Or did it get nodded through the “Cabinet” because we were sold that style of governance on the grounds it was oh-so-more efficient than the old committee system where every budget item had to go past the eyes of a group of councillors which must include opposition councillors and every councillor was on at least one of these committees often on one they had expert knowledge on? Or, again “No councillor, don’t worry your little mind about this, you go off and be a good little community worker, and if you insist on doing something here we’ll put you on some ‘scrutiny’ working party and tie you up looking at something small while the millions spent elsewhere pass by out of your sight”.
No surprises here. UK government procurement always consists of handing huge profit margins to private companies who often don’t deliver.
The (over-) reliance on consultants may be evidence of a wish to avoid responsibility. If a consultancy comes up with a report that proposes unpopular measures, the council can gauge public reaction and then either drop it or go ahead and blame the outside “experts” …
Some of those consultants are the most questionable of all: PR consultants, doing the job of inadequate politicians.
As an observer of matters at Ally Pally, I was amazed to see that the council spent in the order of £200,000 with Lexington Communications, one of London’s more expensive PR consultants. This was in order to facilitate the “disposal” process.
And every single penny was wasted!
When Lexington’s contract was not renewed – after the collapse of the flog-it-to-Firoka fiasco – I was astounded at how easily the Trust Board wanted to replace it with *another* PR company that allegedly would offer better value for money.
Public relations is one area of consultancy that this council should curtail: severely.
I am not surprised by this ammount. Our consultants (surveyor in our case) fees for building work vary from 9% to 12% on any work.