Barnet Council - Metpro Scandal - response from Lord Monroe Palmer

Following my email to Barnet Council yesterday, regarding the Metpro Inquiry, I received this response from the chair of the Audit Committee, Lord Monroe Palmer. Unlike the previous email from BArnet, Lord Palmer has answered the questions posed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Palmer, Cllr Monroe Liberal Democrat

To: Roger Tichborne 

Cc: Salter, Maryellen ; Walkley, Nick ; Bhania, Manjeet

Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:57 PM

Subject: RE: Metpro Rapid Response inquiry

Roger

As you can see I have been asked to respond. I will try to range beyond your questions.

Council voted against having an independent outside investigation.

As Chairman of Audit Committee I agreed with the Chief Executive that Internal Audit could deal with this matter. I have great confidence in our small Internal Audit Team.

I have not agreed  terms of reference, as to set out detailed terms of reference for the audit may hamper internal audit and the committee to exert their constitutional independence and professional expertise.

I asked the Deputy Head of Internal Audit (The Head is away for a few more days) to draft out a scope of the work to be undertaken. I have spoken to him both on the phone and at a one to one meeting today to agree the draft scope and to alter/add in some items I felt should be included. I will meet with Head of Internal Audit on May 4th

I asked Internal Audit to seek the opinion of Grant Thornton, Barnet’s external Auditors as to the work they feel should be carried out.

I have every reason to believe that the audit work will be in depth and hopefully will not be the very expensive exercise if the work is done by an outside body, whoever that might be.

Audit Committee is me, 4 Tory and two Labour Councillors + two Independent members of the committee. The committee never rubber stamps anything

However, what will happen is an Internal Audit, with perhaps some review from an outside body such as Grant Thornton. That’s not decided yet. I am floating various options and will discuss with Ms Maryellen Salter

It will come to the committee on 16^th June which will be in the public gaze. As to public speaking rights, I have no personal objection but need to hear the views of the Council lawyers which has been requested by the Chief Executive. I will press, if needed, for a space for public speaking rights. I will Chair the meeting

It is early days, but my guess is that at start of the meeting you and others may wish to speak and be questioned by the committee. Then the meeting continues as usual with only the Councillors speaking.

We may request Council officers/.members to be questioned. This will depend on results of the audit.

I would stress that this is an audit not an outside inquiry, so will proceed in accordance with Barnet’s constitution.

The terms of the scoping has been seen by Internal Audit and me. It has yet to be finalised. It is then my intention to share that, by email, with all the Committee Members. It would  be very inappropriate to share this more widely at this stage, although in due course everything should be made public.

What I need now is a bit of space in order to do ’my job’

Monroe

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have responded to Lord Palmer as follows :-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Monroe,

 

Thank you for your response.  I have no doubt that the audit committee will do a fine job within it's terms of reference and having yourself as chair of the inquiry is likely to add credibility that having a member of the ruling Party may lack. Without seeing the terms of reference of the inquiry, it is not possible to comment on how effictively the inquiry will address the matters. The following major issues have been identified, I trust you will work to ensure that all of these are covered by the terms of reference of the committee.

a) Metpro Rapid Response had been paid a total of £1.2 million pounds by Barnet Council, although there is apparently no evidence of a proper contract.

 

b) Barnet Council have been unable or unwilling to provide any evidence that such a large contract was ever properly tendered.

 

c) Barnet Council never sought documentary evidence that the Directors of Metpro Rapid Response Ltd were properly accredited by the SIA to run such a business.

 

d) Barnet Council never sought more than assurances that staff were CRB checked for work they undertook with vulnerable people.

 

e) Never asked Metpro Rapid Response Ltd staff to wear ID badges with SIA registration details, despite this being a legal requirement.

 

f) Were unaware that the company was undergoing liquidation proceedings, whilst continuing to work for Barnet Council.

 

g) Had transferred their business to another company Metpro Emergency Response Ltd (which had bought the database, assetts and Website of Metpro Emergency Response Ltd).

 

i) Were unaware that Metpro Rapid Response Ltd staff routinely and covertly filmed residents whilst undertaking work on behalf of Barnet Council.

 

j) Have claimed all such film was obtained and destroyed, even though it could contain footage of criminal activity.

 

k) Have subsequently stripped Metpro Emergency Response Ltd of the contract and awarded it to Blue 9 Security Ltd, using delegated powers (ie with no democratic oversight).

 

j) Have claimed that as of th 13th April the matter was not of public interest, despite numerous press articles, including an article in the Eevening Standard the day before (12th April).

 

l) Have claimed that the chair of the business Managament and Overview Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Hugh Rayner has discussed the issue of Metpro with nobody, despite this being a clear matter for his committee, indicating that Councillors have been kept in the dark.

 

m) Barnet Council refused to sanction a debate on the issue, which was asked for by Councillor Alison Moore, the Leader of the Labour Group.

 

n) Metpro Rapid Response Ltd have debts reportedly of over £245,000  to the inland revenue, which implies they have paid no tax at all on their income from Barnet Council.

 

o) Many FOI requests regarding the issue have been late or worse still, not responded to at all.

 

Given the number of issues with contractors working for Barnet Council, I happen to believe that the remit of the inquiry should be wider than just the issues with Metpro and look at the wider issues of commissioning of outsourced suppliers. Whilst I fully understand your desire to "get on with the job", I must point out that the whole sorry affair has only come to light as a result of local bloggers. Barnet Council was completely unaware of many of these issues until highlighted in local blogs. I am sure we all agree that it is a positive development that these issues have come to light and as such, rest assurred that myself and other local bloggers will continue digging to try and find more informantion, which may be of use to you.

 

I have taken the decision to share all official correspondence regarding this issue with the wider public on my blog, as I believe that the secrecy culture within Barnet must end.

 

I personally believe that an independent public inquiry was the only appropriate way forward, to regain the trust of the people of Barnet. This is not a comment on your abilities, which I hold in high regard, more a view that Barnet Council needs to have faith restored. I believe that only an independent public inquiry will do this, although I am also sure the inquiry you chair will do a fine job. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

 

Regards

Roger

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to state a few things. I believe that Lord Palmer will do a decent job of the internal inquiry. Although some people locally are suspicious, given the national Tory/Lib Dem links, there is no coalition in Barnet Town Hall. I believe that Lord Palmer is independent of the Tory ruling group. He is most certainly not subject to any whipping arrangements.

Having said that I am of the opinion that an independent public inquiry would have been seen to be open, honest and fair. If we can have a public inquiry about the Iraq war, there is no earthly reason why a Barnet inquiry into Metpro should be conducted in private or under the auspices of the Council. I intend to keep pressing for a fully independent inquiry. Without seeing the terms of reference, I cannot criticise them. We await these.

I am pleased that Lord Palmer has stated that he will support the right of the public to address the committee. Anything else would be scandalous.

I believe we should respect the work Lord Palmer and the audit committee are doing, but keep up the pressure for a widening of the scope, to ensure that the whole procurement process is reviewed. We must keep up the pressure for a public inquiry and we must keep digging.

We need to collate a file of evidence for the committee and also to present to Eric Pickles, Nick Clegg and David Cameron, along with our letter explaining why we demand an independent public inquiry.

One other matter Lord Palmer raises is the cost of an inquiry. Dodgy contracts which are badly drawn up have cost Barnet tens of millions of pounds. The whole procurement process is broken. Whilst an independent Inquiry, including teams of forensic auditors, may be expensive, it would send a signal that Barnet Council has to discharge its duties to the Taxpayer in a proper manner. In the long run, that will save the Taxpayer a fortune and improve the whole way the Council does business.

I have no faith in Barnet Council internal inquiries. In last years Elections, hundreds of voters were cheated out of their votes by Barnet Council being unable to make proper arrangements. The count was a fiasco, being held in freezing cold tents, without proper heating. All sorts of problems and irregularities were reported, including many by me to Nick Walkley, who was returning officer as well as CEO. I was never contacted by the inquiry and the final report concluded that Barnet Council had done a marvellous job. It was a complete whitewash.

That is why I am totally sceptical about this whole process.