Apparently at last weeks meeting of Conservative Councillors the subject of Metpro Rapid Response was discussed, Leader Lynne Hillan reassurred her flock that "it is under control" (or words to that effect - 3 different Tory Councillors have given me three slightly different quotes).
Tonight the Evening Standard detailed how the Council have given the company £1.2 million pounds. They had not bothered to check whether the company was legally licensed to provide the service. Apparently the company had assured them that the licenses were in place. It rather reminded me of a court case I read about where a man stated that the girl he'd had sex with had assurred him that she was 18, when in fact she was 13. His defence? "She looked 18". What is Barnet Councils defence for using this company? They looked like a proper security company? Now whilst my little analogy might seem frivalous, let us remember that I recently attended a Council meeting where Councillor Andrew Harper discussed the "corporate parenting strategy" that the Council were developing. You see Barnet Council is the Corporate parent to many vulnerable people. One such site where is Barbara Langstone House in Finchley. Young and vulnerable people are housed here. This was one site which Barnet Outsourced the scurity of to MetPro.
It is also known that children were video'd without consent at the Council meeting where this whole scandal came to light, by MetPro staff fitted with hidden cameras, without consent. When requests were made to see this footage, Barnet Council claimed it had destroyed it, although they didn't state whether they had any evidence or logs to prove that all footage had been destroyed or only the footage in their possession. Who knows if other copies exist or not (like the phantom SIA registrations).
As I stated above, Barnet Council are a corporate parent to a large number of vulnerable people. They have both a moral and legal duty to safeguard the people who are in their care. By failing to develop proper procedures to ensure safeguarding measures are in place, they have failed those people. Barnet Council Leader, Councillor Lynne Hillan is where the buck stops. There are two massive scandals currently affecting Barnet. Metpro, where a firm of private contractors have not been properly managed, potentially placing vulnerable people at risk. There is also the Legionella outbreak at Barnet Care Homes. Again this is down to Private Contractors not being properly managed, with the net result that vulnerable people have been put at risk. With two such extreme examples of corporate failure, you would think that Barnet Council would be undertaking a root and branch review of their procurement procedures. On the contrary, they are rushing through a mass program of outsourcing, in some cases even bypassing the scrutiny process.
What has happened at Barnet Council can only be described as corporate failure. The Leader of the Council has done nothing to address it in five weeks. She has not taken her role as corporate parent seriously. She has done nothing to regain public trust. The only way forward now must be for Lynne Hillan to resign and Barnet Council to have a public enquiry under an independent chair. The council needs to be sorted out. The processes and procedures need root and branch reform. Metpro was not a small company, Barnet paid them £1.2 Million. They were not involved in trivial matters, they were on the front line dealing with residents and vulnerable people. The council has engaged a company who may or may not have been operating illegally and without the proper safeguards and protections. Barnet Council only found out because of a concerted campaign by local residents, through the blogs. The very people that the Leader of the Council described as "not respectable residents". It should not be a job for bloggers to ensure that Barnet discharge their legal responsibilities. She has to go and go now, before any more damage is done.
Tonight the Evening Standard detailed how the Council have given the company £1.2 million pounds. They had not bothered to check whether the company was legally licensed to provide the service. Apparently the company had assured them that the licenses were in place. It rather reminded me of a court case I read about where a man stated that the girl he'd had sex with had assurred him that she was 18, when in fact she was 13. His defence? "She looked 18". What is Barnet Councils defence for using this company? They looked like a proper security company? Now whilst my little analogy might seem frivalous, let us remember that I recently attended a Council meeting where Councillor Andrew Harper discussed the "corporate parenting strategy" that the Council were developing. You see Barnet Council is the Corporate parent to many vulnerable people. One such site where is Barbara Langstone House in Finchley. Young and vulnerable people are housed here. This was one site which Barnet Outsourced the scurity of to MetPro.
Now I've no idea whatsoever how this arrangement worked, but the bottom line is that vulnerable people were guarded by a company, at great expense to the Barnet Taxpayer, who were operating illegally according to the Standard. On theMetpro website, they advertise that they wear CCTV recording equipment. They have stated that this has been used on Barnet Council duty.
It is also known that children were video'd without consent at the Council meeting where this whole scandal came to light, by MetPro staff fitted with hidden cameras, without consent. When requests were made to see this footage, Barnet Council claimed it had destroyed it, although they didn't state whether they had any evidence or logs to prove that all footage had been destroyed or only the footage in their possession. Who knows if other copies exist or not (like the phantom SIA registrations).
As I stated above, Barnet Council are a corporate parent to a large number of vulnerable people. They have both a moral and legal duty to safeguard the people who are in their care. By failing to develop proper procedures to ensure safeguarding measures are in place, they have failed those people. Barnet Council Leader, Councillor Lynne Hillan is where the buck stops. There are two massive scandals currently affecting Barnet. Metpro, where a firm of private contractors have not been properly managed, potentially placing vulnerable people at risk. There is also the Legionella outbreak at Barnet Care Homes. Again this is down to Private Contractors not being properly managed, with the net result that vulnerable people have been put at risk. With two such extreme examples of corporate failure, you would think that Barnet Council would be undertaking a root and branch review of their procurement procedures. On the contrary, they are rushing through a mass program of outsourcing, in some cases even bypassing the scrutiny process.
What has happened at Barnet Council can only be described as corporate failure. The Leader of the Council has done nothing to address it in five weeks. She has not taken her role as corporate parent seriously. She has done nothing to regain public trust. The only way forward now must be for Lynne Hillan to resign and Barnet Council to have a public enquiry under an independent chair. The council needs to be sorted out. The processes and procedures need root and branch reform. Metpro was not a small company, Barnet paid them £1.2 Million. They were not involved in trivial matters, they were on the front line dealing with residents and vulnerable people. The council has engaged a company who may or may not have been operating illegally and without the proper safeguards and protections. Barnet Council only found out because of a concerted campaign by local residents, through the blogs. The very people that the Leader of the Council described as "not respectable residents". It should not be a job for bloggers to ensure that Barnet discharge their legal responsibilities. She has to go and go now, before any more damage is done.
No comments:
Post a Comment