Scandal behind care home deal

I WAS pleased to see the coverage given to the investigation launched by Islington Council into its contracts with Care UK and the circumstances surrounding the slashing of the wages of staff who work for that company (Probe launched into care staff wages cut, February 23).

I was shocked to discover the obscene contrast between the salaries and various perks enjoyed by Care UK’s directors and the wages of staff in their Islington care homes, now only just above the legal minimum.

This is scandalous enough but there is perhaps a bigger scandal in the way in which the council has orchestrated the cutting of staff wages behind the scenes. The council’s executive made a secret decision in December, 2005, to give Care UK additional money to buy out staff terms and conditions.

In deciding to give this additional money to Care UK, the council spotted an opportunity to save itself something like £19 million over 22 years and perhaps also an immediate reduction in the council tax.

Islington Unison has however been concerned that the decision to make the payment to Care UK may have breached the council’s own rules on procurement and was possibly unlawful.

Last month we submitted a report to the council’s performance review committee calling for an independent investigation into the decisions taken by Care UK and the council. Now the council has announced that an internal review is to be carried out by deputy chief executive Andy Jennings. This means the council is investigating itself and I question whether it will do so with sufficient rigour and scrutiny.

Care UK representatives told me the reason they were saving money for the council was in order to secure “future business opportunities”. When a company tenders for a council contract, it should be judged only on the bid it has submitted for that contract, not on business favours it has provided for the council previously.

I hope Mr Jennings will be considering seriously the fact that at the same time as Care UK was being provided with the additional money, the council also awarded it a second contract to run another care home.

Perhaps council leader Councillor James Kempton could explain if the cutting of the Care UK wage bill was intended to help the Lib Dems electorally, by allowing them to freeze the council tax in 2006 without having to inform the electorate how this had been achieved. Cllr Kempton and his accomplices would no doubt claim that cutting the wages of staff does not affect the overall quality of the service. But this is just sheer rubbish and in future it will be harder than ever for Care UK to retain and recruit good and suitably qualified individuals. All this just so the council can pretend it is providing quality services and being efficient

ANDREW BERRY

Deputy branch secretary, Islington Unison

Highbury Grove, N5