Here is the next installment of our analysis of the secret legal advice for Barnet Council. My secret mole, who is a highly respectable person (with secret Trotskyite tendencies and a sense of mischief/ and a concerned and decent person who is sick of lies and subterfuge - delete as appropriate) provided this analysis of what Trowers and Hamlins have to say :-
Let me just say a word here on the subject of leaks from the council. I have been informed of some rather OTT steps taken regarding the locations of meetings to try and avoid "leaks" such as this. Happily for the people of Barnet, there are enough people with consciences who are completely hacked off to ensure that most of these steps fail to prevent the information surfacing. As you can see, this information is highly damning and should be in the public domain. My "deep throat" contact tells me that they are sick to death of the whole Barnet culture. Executives have no interest in hearing genuine concerns of people with huge amounts of experience. The only constraint I have in what I publish from the material I've been passed is the fact that I don't understand most of it and need advice as to what it all means. This either comes from a) the team of moles or b) my friends who have legal training who understand the implications. I've queried many of the passages, once analysis has been provided, only to be told "actually it's more complex than that".
What is pretty clear to me is that it's a minefield and it will be the taxpayer who loses their shirt when it goes bang.
 |
| Trowers and Hamlins legal advice |
Rog, It is no surprise to see that one of the main sections of the legal advice warns about a number of officer roles within the bundle that simply cannot be outsourced. The advice gives four examples but the list is not exhaustive. All manner of people and organisations have been raising this issue since the very start of the Future Shape /easy Council/ One Barnet programme all have consistently been ignored by the Council.
You will remember how this legal obstacle was not taken into account at the Options Appraisal stage. It is deeply concerning to see that these issues have still not been resolved as the project approaches round two dialogue with bidders. How many times have I sat in meetings where concerns have been raised and dismissed as "detail" or be put off until "a subsequent phase".
----------------------------
Let me just say a word here on the subject of leaks from the council. I have been informed of some rather OTT steps taken regarding the locations of meetings to try and avoid "leaks" such as this. Happily for the people of Barnet, there are enough people with consciences who are completely hacked off to ensure that most of these steps fail to prevent the information surfacing. As you can see, this information is highly damning and should be in the public domain. My "deep throat" contact tells me that they are sick to death of the whole Barnet culture. Executives have no interest in hearing genuine concerns of people with huge amounts of experience. The only constraint I have in what I publish from the material I've been passed is the fact that I don't understand most of it and need advice as to what it all means. This either comes from a) the team of moles or b) my friends who have legal training who understand the implications. I've queried many of the passages, once analysis has been provided, only to be told "actually it's more complex than that".
What is pretty clear to me is that it's a minefield and it will be the taxpayer who loses their shirt when it goes bang.
I love it whan an external Council lawyer says "... detailed work may need to be carried out ...".
ReplyDeleteKa-ching! Ka-ching!
Hi Roger
ReplyDeleteDoes the list of 4 include the S151 officer ? as that has been outsourced already. If so, could Halliford be made to pay the money back ?