Let me try to explain in simple terms why I believe the Metpro Audit report to be wholly inadequate, in simple laymans terms.
Firstly, there are a few questions regarding the Metpro Audit report which I am rather interested in.
1. There is a name missing from the list of interviews. Where is the Assistant Director of Financial Services? Given that the vast majority of issues were with the financial aspects of the contract and how financial servies managed the contract, how come that this person was not interviewed. Did the Assistant Director of Financial Services not have any input? Did they refuse to speak to the team. What input did they have? Did they ask for any changes? Did they ask for their name to be removed from the report? They are the key stakeholder, so without their input, it is no wonder so many questions could not be answered.
2. Were any changes made to the "final report" in relation to VAT issues? If they were, what was the reason for the changes. Who authorised them and was the chairman of the audit committee notified of the changes and the reasons for them? Why were they made.
It is quite odd. I received an "early copy" (Barnet Council is full of people who care passionately about the council) of the final report (note the word "final"). This was passed to me in strict confidence, to assist with formulating questions. When the report was posted yesterday on the Barnet Council website, guess what? The final report had a few subtle changes, notably in the area of the "VAT issues".
I asked myself "what is so special about these VAT issues". Now, I'm a certified thicko, I couldn't quite see the relevance, so I dragged in a bloke who lives up the road who is a chartered accountant and plied him with scotch whisky. As his parking permit has gone up, courtesy of Brian Coleman, he was only too happy to help. I asked him? He gave me a detailed explanation. Of course, I'm far too thick to understand what he meant. So I asked for a simple explanation in lay mans terms, using words of one syllable. His response "You go to jail for this, if you do this and they catch you". If I was Lord Palmer, I'd be banging on a few doors in the morning and asking for a forensic review of the source data (ie purchase orders, invoices, etc). And I'd also be having a word with the Assistant Director of Financial Services and asking for an addendum to this report, given their lack of input. Strangely in the issued report, we were rather perplexed to see the VAT references had been watered down. We could only wonder why.
Just to illustrate the point regarding the interviewees, here's the interviewee list - odd, isn't it :-
Initial Scoping:
Chief Executive
Chairman of the Audit Committee
Audit Review process:
Head of Corporate Procurement
Acting Assistant Director (Housing)
Strategic Facilities Manager
Procurement Manager
Major Capital Programmes Deputy Director
Interim Head of Building Services
Accommodation Manager
Deputy Director Children’s Service
Acting Assistant Director – Children’s Social Care
Public Sector Leasing Manager
Operations Manager, Facilities Management
Housing Needs Manager
Homelessness Reduction Co-ordinator
Director for Commercial Services
Divisional Manager - Commercial Division
CAFT – Corporate Investigation Officer
Manager for Accounts payable
Senior Management Accountant – VAT
Tax and Treasury Manager
I could give Lord Palmer a few questions to ask, but as he's a trained accountant, I'm sure that if he reviews the source data properly, he could ask a few questions which are far more pertinent than the ones I've asked. He may also try and get the "unrevised" final version of the report.
One final question for Lord Palmer. According to the report, the Terms of reference were issued on the 4th May. It is quite clear from appendix D of the report that the terms of reference are inadequate as they do not cover many of the issues raised by the MetPro debacle, such as filming and safeguarding. However, the biggest omission in the report is that it doesn't answer a simple question posed in the terms of reference :-
Establish whether performance of the contract was being reported periodically to senior management and there was Member oversight of the contract.
This is the only mention of senior management and member oversight in the report. As such the report has failed to address its own terms of reference. As such the report has failed to address its own terms of reference.
You can read the whole thing yourself here - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10408
*** Updated *** News has reached the Barnet Eye that a report into central procurement was also heavily amended in light of the Metpro report. Apparently there were several significant changes made as a result of the Metpro findings. It has been suggested that a comparison of the original draft and the final report give some idea of the level of shenanigans that have been going on
Firstly, there are a few questions regarding the Metpro Audit report which I am rather interested in.
1. There is a name missing from the list of interviews. Where is the Assistant Director of Financial Services? Given that the vast majority of issues were with the financial aspects of the contract and how financial servies managed the contract, how come that this person was not interviewed. Did the Assistant Director of Financial Services not have any input? Did they refuse to speak to the team. What input did they have? Did they ask for any changes? Did they ask for their name to be removed from the report? They are the key stakeholder, so without their input, it is no wonder so many questions could not be answered.
2. Were any changes made to the "final report" in relation to VAT issues? If they were, what was the reason for the changes. Who authorised them and was the chairman of the audit committee notified of the changes and the reasons for them? Why were they made.
It is quite odd. I received an "early copy" (Barnet Council is full of people who care passionately about the council) of the final report (note the word "final"). This was passed to me in strict confidence, to assist with formulating questions. When the report was posted yesterday on the Barnet Council website, guess what? The final report had a few subtle changes, notably in the area of the "VAT issues".
I asked myself "what is so special about these VAT issues". Now, I'm a certified thicko, I couldn't quite see the relevance, so I dragged in a bloke who lives up the road who is a chartered accountant and plied him with scotch whisky. As his parking permit has gone up, courtesy of Brian Coleman, he was only too happy to help. I asked him? He gave me a detailed explanation. Of course, I'm far too thick to understand what he meant. So I asked for a simple explanation in lay mans terms, using words of one syllable. His response "You go to jail for this, if you do this and they catch you". If I was Lord Palmer, I'd be banging on a few doors in the morning and asking for a forensic review of the source data (ie purchase orders, invoices, etc). And I'd also be having a word with the Assistant Director of Financial Services and asking for an addendum to this report, given their lack of input. Strangely in the issued report, we were rather perplexed to see the VAT references had been watered down. We could only wonder why.
Just to illustrate the point regarding the interviewees, here's the interviewee list - odd, isn't it :-
Initial Scoping:
Chief Executive
Chairman of the Audit Committee
Audit Review process:
Head of Corporate Procurement
Acting Assistant Director (Housing)
Strategic Facilities Manager
Procurement Manager
Major Capital Programmes Deputy Director
Interim Head of Building Services
Accommodation Manager
Deputy Director Children’s Service
Acting Assistant Director – Children’s Social Care
Public Sector Leasing Manager
Operations Manager, Facilities Management
Housing Needs Manager
Homelessness Reduction Co-ordinator
Director for Commercial Services
Divisional Manager - Commercial Division
CAFT – Corporate Investigation Officer
Manager for Accounts payable
Senior Management Accountant – VAT
Tax and Treasury Manager
I could give Lord Palmer a few questions to ask, but as he's a trained accountant, I'm sure that if he reviews the source data properly, he could ask a few questions which are far more pertinent than the ones I've asked. He may also try and get the "unrevised" final version of the report.
One final question for Lord Palmer. According to the report, the Terms of reference were issued on the 4th May. It is quite clear from appendix D of the report that the terms of reference are inadequate as they do not cover many of the issues raised by the MetPro debacle, such as filming and safeguarding. However, the biggest omission in the report is that it doesn't answer a simple question posed in the terms of reference :-
Establish whether performance of the contract was being reported periodically to senior management and there was Member oversight of the contract.
This is the only mention of senior management and member oversight in the report. As such the report has failed to address its own terms of reference. As such the report has failed to address its own terms of reference.
You can read the whole thing yourself here - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10408
*** Updated *** News has reached the Barnet Eye that a report into central procurement was also heavily amended in light of the Metpro report. Apparently there were several significant changes made as a result of the Metpro findings. It has been suggested that a comparison of the original draft and the final report give some idea of the level of shenanigans that have been going on
1 comment:
There are 3 Assistant Directors of Finance at Barnet. Maryellen Salter, in charge of Audit, wrote the report. The other two are Maria Christofi, Financial Services and John Hooten, Strategic Finance. More worrying is that Andrew Travers, the Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, was not interviewed.
Equally, there is no mention in the report of breach of EU procurement directives which say that any contract, or aggregated contracts of a value over £144K, must be advertised to allow transparent competition. Any (& every) security company which might have wanted to bid for the contracts can sue the Council for loss of opportunity & receive damages. The European Commission can also choose to bring an action against Barnet.
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/Introduction_to_the_EU_rules.pdf
Post a Comment