What is wrong with Barnet Council? Democracy under threat!

The Mill Hill Music Festival is over, my thoughts return to more mundane issues. Much as I would like to avoid all matters Barnet Council, sadly sometimes one has to speak out. For over ten years, I have done everything possible to ensure that Barnet Council is run as well as possible. I've written over 4 million words of blog on the subject. I've attended over a hundred council meetings and asked God knows how many questions, with the aim of trying to draw attention to clear mistakes etc in council papers and bad policy decisions. This has lead to some extraordinary victories.

Perhaps the greatest of these was the unearthing of the Metpro scandal. I don't take sole credit for this, as my fellow Barnet bloggers all played an equally important role in exposing this. For the uninitiated, Barnet Council was employing a highly dodgy company to supply security services. The company did not have proper SIA accreditation. The company were submitting invoices including VAT when they were not registered. They were charging 30% more than the going rate. Following questions from bloggers, the Audit committee (under the chairmanship of Liberal Democrat opposition Councillor Lord Monroe Palmer) agreed to do an investigation. This was only achieved by all four bloggers asking numerous detailed questions. These convinced Lord Palmer that there was a significant problem. He ordered an inquiry. As a result, Metpro were dismissed, the council engaged a new supplier at 30% less. They also identified many unnecessary services. The review identified a whole stack of weaknesses in the general procurement system. I've no idea how much all of this has saved taxpayers, but on the security contract alone, it is over £2 million. The value of "armchair auditors" in this was recognised by the local government secretary Eric Pickles, who praised the Barnet bloggers at the Tory conference. I have always said that my problem was not with the colour of the administration, but with its inefficiency. Eric Pickles was a sensible secretary, who recognised that in many ways, despite our ideological differences, the Barnet bloggers were doing exactly what a sensible Tory would want us to do. The local Tories were highly embarrassed by Lord Pickles. Rather than realise they had £2 million more in the coffers, they reacted in the most bone headed way possible.

The first thing they did after the 2014 Council elections was abolish the precedent that guaranteed Audit committee independence. By convention, this committee, alone in Barnet, had an opposition party chair. This guaranteed independence. The chair was also a suitably qualified and senior councillor. This meant that there could be no hint of shenanigans. Lord Palmer welcomed the intervention of bloggers. He was a sensible, grown up politician, who did his job properly. By removing the independence, the credibility of the committee was undermined. Before the last election, Councillor Hugh Rayner, a long standing Tory councillor was in the role. He did a reasonable job, and at one meeting discussing Capita congratulated both myself and John Dix for bringing numerous issues to his attention. In his final speech, he stated that the councillors on the committee did not have the qualifications to do the job of audit oversight properly and called for more training for the committee.

Sadly, on his departure, this was not listened to. Tonight, the Constitution and General Purposes committee are debating placing the following restriction on Public engagement at meetings - Full details here

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g9854/Public%20reports%20pack%2025th-Jun-2019%2019.00%20Constitution%20and%20General%20Purposes%20Committee.pdf?T=10

1.7 The Committee are requested to consider the proposals of the Monitoring Officer as set out below and comment accordingly:

1. Questions and comments should be amalgamated; it is perfectly possible to raise a comment as part of a question.  The number of words for each question/comment should be limited at 100.

2. Questions/comments should be raised under the current rules for questions.  This means that the council and lead officer would have notice of the question/comment before the meeting and would therefore be in a position to amend the committee report (if necessary) to include a relevant matter raised in the question/comment, if not currently within the committee report.

3. Residents may raise one question/comment on an agenda item.  The question/comment must relate to the substantive matter to be determined by the committee.  No more than two questions from residents will be allowed per agenda item taken in the order of receipt by the Governance Service.

4. Residents may raise one question/comment per committee meeting in order to allow as many residents as possible to raise questions/comments and ask a supplementary question at Committee.

5. The deadline for submitting a question/comment be extended to 10am two clear working days before the meeting.  Questions/comments will be responded to verbally at the meeting only.  Residents will be able to ask one supplementary question for each question/comment made.  If there is insufficient time to deal with all questions in the 30 minutes of allocated time, a written response will be provided within a reasonable period.  The Chairman should also have the discretion to request that a question answered at the meeting also be responded to in writing.

Under these rules, there is no way that the Metpro scandal (or any of the numerous problems that Bloggers have uncovered) could have been drawn to the attention of the relevant committees.  Let me spell out the issues (My comments in Red Italics)

1. Questions and comments should be amalgamated; it is perfectly possible to raise a comment as part of a question.  The number of words for each question/comment should be limited at 100.

If there is a complex technical issue to raise as a question, an arbitrary 100 word limit will prevent a properly constructed question, this is especially true for issues on budget. It will result in simple, inane, sloganistic questions, rather than sensible, well thought out, detailed questions.

2. Questions/comments should be raised under the current rules for questions.  This means that the council and lead officer would have notice of the question/comment before the meeting and would therefore be in a position to amend the committee report (if necessary) to include a relevant matter raised in the question/comment, if not currently within the committee report.

This is a sensible amendment

3. Residents may raise one question/comment on an agenda item.  The question/comment must relate to the substantive matter to be determined by the committee.  No more than two questions from residents will be allowed per agenda item taken in the order of receipt by the Governance Service.

If a resident notices multiple problems within a report, it will now be impossible for more than one to be addressed. This will mean that there is no opportunity to correct obvious errors. This will also favour organised pressure groups, trades unions and political campaigns, who can muster a gang of questioners, over ordinary, concerned residents. 

4. Residents may raise one question/comment per committee meeting in order to allow as many residents as possible to raise questions/comments and ask a supplementary question at Committee.

This is highly dishonest. Under the present system, residents questions are round robin'd so that you ask a question, then the next resident on the list does. When all residents have had a turn, the process starts again. No resident misses an opportunity under the existing system. 

5. The deadline for submitting a question/comment be extended to 10am two clear working days before the meeting.  Questions/comments will be responded to verbally at the meeting only.  Residents will be able to ask one supplementary question for each question/comment made.  If there is insufficient time to deal with all questions in the 30 minutes of allocated time, a written response will be provided within a reasonable period.  The Chairman should also have the discretion to request that a question answered at the meeting also be responded to in writing.

Whilst I welcome the extension of the deadline, the lack of a written answer is a clear attempt to a) limit the time available for questions. By answering the question, rather than supplying an answer, the half hour will soon be eaten up. Furthermore, it gives little opportunity for residents to ask supplementary questions. In short this is a ruse to stifle debate.

It is clear that the new leader of the Barnet Tories, Councillor Dan Thomas, is not keen on the public, transparency or engagement. This is his first action and it is quite frankly despicable. Once there is a new Prime Minister, I will be writing to them to draw their attention to this issue. Everyone in Barnet should be concerned. If for no other reason than the fact that the Borough would be £2 million worse off if these rules had been in place in 2012. What sort of regime excludes the public and stifles public debate.