Saturday, 21 May 2011

Barnet Council Metpro Scandal - The Inquiry is not an Inquiry !!!!!!!

I was forwarded this email tonight.
----------------------------------------

From: Palmer, Cllr Monroe Liberal Democrat [mailto:Cllr.M.Palmer@barnet.gov.uk]
Sent: 20 May 2011 19:43
To: John Dix
Cc: Giritli, Aysen; Lustig, Jeff; Salter, Maryellen
Subject: FW: MetPro inquiry - submission of information

Thank you for that
I am passing on this message:
To Democratic Services to note your request to speak at the meeting
To Mr Lustig
To our Head of Internal Audit who is leading the Audit work

This is not an ‘inquiry’ but a detailed  internal audit
The report will be published as all Council committee reports are published. Members of the Public can apply to speak prior to the committee discussing the audit report.

I welcome information from all sources

Monroe Palmer
-----------------------------------------------------

So after all the press coverage, all the investigations, all the revelations, we don't even get a proper inquiry, just a "detailed internal audit". I have asked on several occasions for the terms of reference, but these have not been published.  What we do know is that this "detailed internal audit" will be conducted by the very same people who were meant to be keeping an eye on the whole process in the first place. They have a vested interest in sweeping all of the embarrassing information under the carpet, because it was caused by a systemic failure, WHICH THEY CAUSED AND PRESIDED OVER.

As far as I am concerned, this shows beyond doubt that Barnet Council cannot be trusted. It shows beyond doubt that the CEO, Nick Walkley is only interested in "damage limitation" and keeping his job, with it's £200,000 a year salary. It seems no one in a position of power is in the slightest bit interested as to how the Council could pay over a million pounds to a company which was operating illegally.

The use of the term audit as opposed to inquiry, indicates a steadfast refusal, in face of all of the evidence, to actually admit they've cocked up. What I want to know is whether Nick Walkley will be publicly grilled, in front of cameras, as to why he allowed this to happen. He's paid more dosh per annum than the Prime Minister, which implies a degree of responsibility in his job. He allowed a company to operate in a sensitive role, with no checks whatsoever on their legal status. It is clear that security staff with no accreditation whatsoever had access to the most sensitive parts of Barnet Town Hall.

One question nobody seems to have bothered to ask is this. As we now know Metpro Rapid Response Ltd had no accreditation and Barnet hadn't bothered to check their status or paperwork, and their staff wore video recording equipment, allegedly without permission from Barnet Council, what sensitive areas of the council, what private records and what personal information COULD they have covertly filmed? It is clear from the discussions on the night of the March 1st Council meeting, that these people had access to all sorts of areas, where sensitive information could be held. As a Council Tax Payer who's personal information including bank details are held by Barnet, for all I know these staff have had access to record this information. Metpro have stated that their staff worked at both Hendon Town Hall and NLBP. They did not have any accreditation. They had access to vulnerable people and secure areas in the Council buildings. What did they get up to? The sad truth is that no one at Barnet Council has a clue. It is a matter of record that I was asked to stop filming  public meetings, in public areas on two occasions by Barnet Councillors. How come these same councillors are not tearing down the walls, trying to find out how a private contractor was allowed to film God knows what?

Sadly, the answer is because it might embarrass their bosses. With every day, it becomes more patently obvious that we will never know the truth, unless we, the people of Barnet, drag it out of the Council bosses. This is not how democracy is meant to work. Councillor Andrew Harper has been the de-facto leader of the Council since the turn of the year. He's now said that he wants to officially take over the job. Harper has presided over the whole Metpro scandal and has shown himself to be completely ineffective. Barnet Eye readers may be interested to know that "sources close to" Brian Coleman have let us know that Coleman (allegedly) considers Metpro to be an almighty cock up and that if he becomes leader he'll have it properly investigated. They have also informed us that Coleman thinks senior Council officers need  a major kick up the backside. You can take this with however many pinches of salt you like (I certainly have). It does however show us that there is a split at the highest level of the Barnet Tories on the matter and the most ambitious of the lot of them realises that there are no votes to be won in protecting people who have blatently failed to do their job. I rather suspect, based on what I've been told, that Coleman will be quite happy for Lord Palmer to cock up the "detailed internal audit" so he can shout out loud that he was the only person in Barnet with the guts to deal with the executive. Coleman (allegedly) is briefing that it shows Andrew Harper lacks the cojones to take on the executive.

I do wonder when we will hear from Colemans challenger for the GLA seat, Andrew Dismore, on this sorry matter. He'd better kick his troops into action soon, or he could find that Coleman pulls an ace from his sleeve and trumps him.

4 comments:

  1. Good post, Rog. Like you I've seen this email and feel utterly disgusted. The point about MetPro's unregulated access to vulnerable people and children is for me one of the worst aspects: it is incredible that we cannot trust this council to safeguard the safety of such residents. Palmer's audit committee is simply not going to contain this scandal: the issues are too sensitive and too important.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So I was correct. Lord Palmer has blown it.

    As for Nick Walkley, this isn’t merely an exercise in damage limitation. He is covering his own arse. He was the Director responsible for resources when Metpro were granted the contract that wasn’t actually a contract. He’s the first one who needs to be shown the door.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have just been looking at a guide from the EU to the regulations about tendering and they include the following words :-

    "Mandatory exclusion of companies or other bodies whose Directors or other decision makers have been convicted of the following offences – participation in a criminal organisation, corruption, bribery and fraud, as defined in the Regulations; and..."

    There hasn't been a conviction but who knows what is coming. I am sure the SIA are looking into the matter more closely than Barnet Council are.

    So, a company that is operating illegally in the security sector, because it doesn't have the necessary SIA licences, should be excluded from being able to tender because they wouldn't meet the tender criteria - i.e. having SIA licences.

    That leaves Barnet Council in an even worse position. They have made an "arrangement" with an unqualified supplier and then given it over £1m of our money.

    Mr Mustard is having lunch with his very smart lawyer tomorrow. The conversation will be very interesting as there appears to have been a "total failure of consideration" as the service paid for - of providing licensed security guards - has not been provided - unlicensed security guards have ( Barnet Council's own private army of security men: muscle bound bouncers in black shirts, leathers, and an assortment of pseudo-military uniforms ~ copyright, Mrs Angry, thank you )and I might have to ask the Chief Executive and/or Grant Thornton the basis on which £1m+ has been paid out as not a penny should have left the Council coffers which Officers are meant to safeguard on our behalf. The senior Officers could reimburse this between them without a problem.

    I expect the head of purchasing reads your blog Roger, as he sure does mine, and will be calling the Barnet out of hours emergency legal helpline - which of course we have to pay for, for urgent advice.

    Why can't Barnet get the simplest things right ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr Mustard: respect ... more on this to come ...

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately. I moderate once per day. Comments of a personal, abusive, spam or unrelated to the topic will not appear and will be deleted.

Only comments from Registered users allowed