Yesterday I detailed how Councillor Hugh Rayner (chair of the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee) hadn't even discussed the Metpro Contract fiasco with a single soul (living or dead). Odd I thought. Today I read this report a bit more carefully :-
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10341
This is the only report on the Council website about the fiasco. It details how MetPro have been sacked and replaced with Blue 9. There are a few major concerns :-
1. This was signed off under delegated powers. As I understand it, this means that £1.2 million worth of business approx (that was what MetPro were paid) has potentially been awarded with no democratic oversight. This rather backs up Hugh Rayners comment that he hadn't discussed the issue. The whole matter was dealt with by Council officers under "delegated powers". The Commercial Director Craig Cooper signed it. Given that the issue has been all over the press, can this possibly be appropriate?
2. Section 6.2 states the following :-
The liquidators for MetPro Rapid Response - BM Advisory - sold the physical assetts,name, goodwill, vehicles,uniforms,website and database of Rapid Response ltd to Emergency Response Ltd.
Now the issue that intrigues me is what the Metpro Rapid Response Database contains. Barnet Council has wide ranging powers to spy on residents under the RIPA legislation. I've no idea whether this information can be held on third party databases. If it is, can it be sold as a commercial asset ? Directors of MetPro Rapid response stated that they had collected all manner of digital information (presumably including videos of residents from CCTV footage). Is this part of "the database". Was this sold? Did Barnet Council have any oversight and scrutiny of this Database? What information do MetPro hold about me? It has been said that Barnet Council have been "monitoring bloggers". Has this been outsourced.
3. Barnet Council consider surveillance and security as merely a commercial issue. There is no reference to the other, more worrying aspects of the scandal.
4. Blue 9 are actually cheaper than MetPro. Does this indicate that the Council did not attempt to secure the best price for the contract. Given that Mr Cooper has felt happy to use this company, they MUST be ok. Given that presumably the Council were desperate for cover, given the fact they sacked Metpro, it is even more surprising that Blue 9 were able to undercut them.
All of this is bad enough, but if you want a graphic demonstration of the level of fantasy and denial in Barnet Council, read section 3.3 - it says this about the whole issue :-
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23940351-council-paid-pound-12m-for-illegal-security.do
We've also had coverage in the Ham & High, Barnet Times, Barnet Press, all of the Blogs, calls on phone in shows and letters in the papers. The Guardian has featured this on it's London Section and David Henke, former Guardian Westminster correspondent has written several articles about the issue.
If Barnet CEO Nick Walkley and De facto Council Leader Andrew Harper do not believe this is a "significant Level of Public Concern" I'd like to see their definition. According to their own scale, this is a Catastrophy.
As Barnet Council are clearly deluded, the time has come to take the matter higher. A letter is being drafted to Eric Pickles, Nick Clegg and David Cameron.
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10341
This is the only report on the Council website about the fiasco. It details how MetPro have been sacked and replaced with Blue 9. There are a few major concerns :-
1. This was signed off under delegated powers. As I understand it, this means that £1.2 million worth of business approx (that was what MetPro were paid) has potentially been awarded with no democratic oversight. This rather backs up Hugh Rayners comment that he hadn't discussed the issue. The whole matter was dealt with by Council officers under "delegated powers". The Commercial Director Craig Cooper signed it. Given that the issue has been all over the press, can this possibly be appropriate?
2. Section 6.2 states the following :-
The liquidators for MetPro Rapid Response - BM Advisory - sold the physical assetts,name, goodwill, vehicles,uniforms,website and database of Rapid Response ltd to Emergency Response Ltd.
Now the issue that intrigues me is what the Metpro Rapid Response Database contains. Barnet Council has wide ranging powers to spy on residents under the RIPA legislation. I've no idea whether this information can be held on third party databases. If it is, can it be sold as a commercial asset ? Directors of MetPro Rapid response stated that they had collected all manner of digital information (presumably including videos of residents from CCTV footage). Is this part of "the database". Was this sold? Did Barnet Council have any oversight and scrutiny of this Database? What information do MetPro hold about me? It has been said that Barnet Council have been "monitoring bloggers". Has this been outsourced.
3. Barnet Council consider surveillance and security as merely a commercial issue. There is no reference to the other, more worrying aspects of the scandal.
4. Blue 9 are actually cheaper than MetPro. Does this indicate that the Council did not attempt to secure the best price for the contract. Given that Mr Cooper has felt happy to use this company, they MUST be ok. Given that presumably the Council were desperate for cover, given the fact they sacked Metpro, it is even more surprising that Blue 9 were able to undercut them.
All of this is bad enough, but if you want a graphic demonstration of the level of fantasy and denial in Barnet Council, read section 3.3 - it says this about the whole issue :-
3.3 I do not consider that the issues involved are likely to raise significant levels of public concern or give rise to policy considerationsThis is truly unbelievable. This report in the Evening Standard appeared on the 11th of April, the day before Mr Cooper signed this off
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23940351-council-paid-pound-12m-for-illegal-security.do
We've also had coverage in the Ham & High, Barnet Times, Barnet Press, all of the Blogs, calls on phone in shows and letters in the papers. The Guardian has featured this on it's London Section and David Henke, former Guardian Westminster correspondent has written several articles about the issue.
If Barnet CEO Nick Walkley and De facto Council Leader Andrew Harper do not believe this is a "significant Level of Public Concern" I'd like to see their definition. According to their own scale, this is a Catastrophy.
As Barnet Council are clearly deluded, the time has come to take the matter higher. A letter is being drafted to Eric Pickles, Nick Clegg and David Cameron.
6 comments:
Rog
The council uses this form of wording every time unelected officers take dubious decisions under delegated powers in order to avoid scrutiny of the decision making process. But the second part of the sentence is equally important:
“or give rise to policy considerations”
Didn’t the council recently admit that it didn’t actually have a policy on security at the Town Hall? This is the council’s get-out-of-jail card. “We don’t have any policy on this, therefore there are no policy considerations to worry about.”
Now look here Tinkleborne - my chums and I know what we are doing and it is really for your own good. Think of it like a good dose of salts. You'll get the trots but you'll feel much better afterwards. Pip Pip!
I was at a council meeting this evening, nothing important, just the systematic dismantling of the constitution and the installation of further obstructions for the residents of this borough wishing to access the democratic process, usual kind of thing. MetPro was mentioned a couple of times, in relation to such matters as DPRs, and oh hello: no one would make eye contact with Mrs Angry. There was deep embarrassment: they are in deep shit and they know it. We must keep the pressure up, and we will.
DCMD, it's way more serious than that. If I recall correctly, this is a hangover from the Underhill Inquiries, that DPR that have 'public interest' must be decided by Cabinet Members.
It's quite odd that it the Officer who has to self certify this and not either a Director or Cabinet Member.
How can something that has been plastered over the newspapers around London not be of public interest?
You are correct, but if we want to complain that this DPR is an abuse of process, who do we complain to? Why the council of course. So the council investigates a complaint against itself. No possible chance for a conflict of interest.
Alternatively, you could raise the matter with the council’s auditors. You know, the firm which earn tens of thousands of pounds each year for consultancy and audit work - no possible chance of a conflict there either.
The delegated powers process is a farce. As officers we simply do what we're told by the "elected" members, who supposedly represent the will of the people (hah!)
Officers process and sign these DPR's off because they have to as part of their job, whether they agree with the contents or not.
Post a Comment