Borders' huge increase in agency spending on social workers

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

Newly published information shows the amount being spent by Scottish Borders Council on agency social workers in its children's services department has increased seven-fold in the last six financial years, the bill for 2018/19 totalling £626,577.

Meanwhile the council is also spending record sums on temporary staff to run the region's adult social work services, the bill last year costing local taxpayers £779,773. The combined expenditure of £1.406 million is far above the 2012/13 figure of £378,216 which included just £95,419 for temps in the children's service.

SBC provided the 2018/19 statistics in response to a Freedom of Information request from Dee Green who had asked a number of other Scottish local authorities for data on agency numbers and expenditure.

Ms Green had already been told by councils serving Edinburgh, Dumfries & Galloway, Aberdeenshire, South Lanarkshire and Dundee that they had not spent anything on agency social workers to deliver children's services in 2018/19. The results of her research have been published on the What Do They Know website.

According to comparisons made by the Community Care organisation, it costs local government departments considerably more to take on agency social workers than to hire permanent staff members. Pay rates of up to £35 an hour for locums were being quoted by Community Care back in 2016 as being offered by stretched local authorities.

In a previous FOI response in 2017 Scottish Borders Council revealed that it was paying on average £175 per day for agency workers in children's services and £152 in the case of adult services. In both sections of the service the average time spent in the Borders by these temps was given as 103 days.

So far as children's social work was concerned the annual totals in fees paid to agencies providing locums were: 2012-13 £95,419; 2013-14 £139,032; 2014-15 £264,365; 2015-16 £236,629; 2016-17  £467,751 (to 1st March 2017).

The figures for the adult services were: 2012-13  £282,797; 2013-14  £168,921; 2014-15 £327,880;  2015-16 £409,266; 2016-17 £588,089 (to 1st March 2017).

Now the new information from the Borders Social Work & Integration and Children & Young People department confirm that spending on agency staff continues to spiral upwards.

Details included in the response show which private companies received council cash over the last full financial year. The breakdown is as follows:

Children’s Services: Randstad Care Limited £7,502.97 Sanctuary Personnel Limited £12,742.72 The Social Care Community Partnership Limited £479,478.16 The Harmony Employment Agency Limited £4,768.48 Tripod Partners £62,589.78 Taylor Davenport £16,660.00 Randstad Public Services CAR £29,790.78.

Adult Services: Bibby Financial Services £13,498.05 MacDonald McEwan Limited £167,864.10 Piers Meadows Recruitment Limited £67,154.26 Randstad Public Services CAR £398,503.06 Sanctuary Personnel Limited £122,408.22 The Social Care Community Partnership Limited £10,345.46.

An article published by The Guardian newspaper last year stated: "Experts said the difficulty experienced by councils in attracting permanent staff meant vulnerable children and families were often seeing multiple social workers in a single year, making it harder for them to engage with services.

"They said the large-scale use of agency social workers was a poor use of dwindling local authority funds, as locums received a higher hourly rate than permanent staff, on top of the fee paid to the company they were employed through.

"Ray Jones, a former director of children's services and emeritus professor at Kingston University, said working conditions for social workers had deteriorated, with bigger caseloads, less support and inadequate pay, which made locum work more attractive.

"'You're paying more for a poorer service [with agency workers] because what you need in terms of children's and adult social services is continuity - people who know the people they are working with, can build relationships with those families over time, and know their history', he said".

£220 million costs missing from Lowood 'guidance'

EXCLUSIVE by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

The sizeable sums of public and private money required to develop the Lowood Estate in the Scottish Borders, and the financial resources needed to deliver the overall Tweedbank Masterplan do not feature in Supplementary Planning Guidance [SPG] which will now be put out for public consultation.

Although the absence of any meaningful published capital expenditure figures in the documents produced by Scottish Borders Council could be seen as hindering the consultation process, details of just how much cash could be needed for the massive project were in fact presented to the council in private as long ago as January 2018. These vital statistics appear to be part of a closely guarded secret.

The presentation took place several months before the local authority concluded a deal with two companies based in the faraway Cayman Islands which resulted in SBC buying the Lowood land by the banks of the River Tweed for £9.6 million plus expenses and fees. The confidential report from consultants Turner & Townsend Cost Management Ltd. contained a breakdown of the likely sums needed for each aspect of the Masterplan based on August 2017 prices.

It is worth noting that Turner & Townsend's estimates excluded any allowance for legal or professional fees, and increases which were likely to be incurred due to inflation were not factored into the calculations either.

According to the confidential report the grand total needed to complete the Masterplan measures stood at £216.319 million in January 2018, close to a preliminary estimate of £220 million.

The Lowood element of the plan would require £106 million, including a £10 million sum to cover acquisition of the estate. Various infrastructure costs linked to the future developments at Tweedbank and set out in the report totalled more than £21 million.

The overall figure needed by the council and its development partners almost equates to the total spend on capital projects by the local authority over a ten-year period. Proposals included in the last ten-year capital programme which received approval in 2018 will require the investment of £294 million.

The new SPG document, also drawn up by external consultants, does not specify how many houses will be built during the various phases of residential developments on and around Lowood even though numbers will be crucial to the scheme's economic viability. There is a strong hint given that a so-called 'indicative' figure of 300 new dwellings is likely to increase when planning permission is sought for the various zones of housing land.

However, specific figures on house building were included in the Turner & Townsend report of January 2018. It allowed for 437 housing units made up of 284 two-beds, 59 three-beds, 59 four-beds and 35 five-beds.

A figure of £5.4 million was also quoted as the likely cost of converting Lowood House - home to the Hamilton family but now in council ownership - into a boutique hotel. Yet housing numbers and other key details concerning the intended developments on the estate are not mentioned in the SPG.

A press release issued by SBC to coincide with a council discussion to approve the SPG claimed: "The draft SPG provides direction on the development of new residential and high quality business space within Tweedbank, with 350 jobs estimated to be created and the potential to generate £150million of Gross Value Added (GVA) to the Borders economy."

One observer commented: "It seems strange that SBC has been able to come up with job numbers and GVA figures but has declined to produce detailed costs or tell us how many houses will be built on this very sensitive site. On that basis it will be difficult to say whether the so-called Masterplan is viable".

In early 2018, during negotiations between the council and agents for Lowood's owners, councillors were also told in private: "The agents have indicated that the estate has had a number of property developers making enquiries now that the site has been identified in the LDP [Local Development Plan].

"However, the owners' preferred way forward is to deal directly with the council if we can conclude within the identified timescale".

And the confidential documentation also stated: "The council will seek to identify suitable development partners, both public and private sector, to ameliorate any development risks".

So far the council has not publicly identified any development partners. The consultation period during which comments and representations can be made on the SPG's contents will run for twelve weeks.