Mike Freer MP in trouble for breaking electoral rules

Mike Freer MP has been reported to the Standards Commissioner for breaking rules over misuse of Parliamentary resources. Mr Freer contravined rules by using Commons headed notepaper to send a  party political message to local residents as part of a Tory Election campiagn in Childs Hill. Lord Monroe Palmer told the Hendon Times

“The letter is on Parliament paper in a Parliament House of Commons envelope with a free post envelope. But he has masqueraded a survey as to whether people approve or disapprove of a mansion tax – the letter is in conjunction with an election address." The Tory election leaflet condemns Labour and Liberal Democrats opinions on the mansion tax. Lord Palmer, who is a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: "The two have got to be looked at together. It’s like MPs over-claiming their expenses – it’s not illegal but it’s rather immoral. This is political campaigning with tax payers’ money.”

Rather sadly, Freers Tory colleage, Deputy Leader of the Tories in Barnet Dan Thomas finds it all rather hilarious. Yesterday he tweeted

True Blue ‏@TrueBlueBarnet 12h

@barnetbugle @GuidoFawkes @BarnetLibDems @mikefreermp Monroe has helped publicise our campaign against his party's mansion tax.

The Barnet Eye suspects that Mr Thomas wil not help Mr Freer with his trite comment. In my experience, the authorities take a dim view of people who stick two fingers up at the authorities and hold them in contempt.  I would suggest that the voters in Mr Thomas ward look very carefully at this man, who seems to think that the law of the land doesn't apply to Tories and finds it all rather funny

Barnet Council Audit Committee - 8th December 2011

So off I trundled to the Barnet Council Audit Committee earlier this evening. Due to other commitments, I could only stay for 1 hour. To be honest, I only bothered going to give my fellow bloggers Mr Reasonable and Mrs Angry moral support, as they had asked a few questions. Lord Mustard also attended. I expect this to be the best blogged meeting in the history of Barnet Council and it's audit committee. As I sloped off early, this account will doubtless be the worst and least comprehensive. I also video'd the public questions for posterity and also managed to capture a rather comedic moment (which I will post over the weekend to cheer you all up). So these are my notes from the part of the meeting, where I wasn't videoing and wasn't skiving off (approx 7.30pm - 8pm).

The committee were reviewing the external auditors report from Grant Thornton. It kicked off with one of my favourite Tory Councillors, Brian Schama asking a very good question. I like Schama. he's straightforward, plain talking and sensible. If I had to have a Tory Councillor in Mill Hill, Brian is the one I'd pick. He actually does the job, which is what we all want (isn't it?) and does it in a reasonable and decent manner. I suspect that if his colleagues were all like him, there wouldn't be a famous five bloggers. His question "Now we have a system for vetting contracts, can we be assurred that all new contracts, apart from emergency ones, where there is no time for proper vetting and which there should be an exception procedure for, will be 100% compliant with Barnets rules?" And the answer was? Well it was extremely long, three people answered it and at the end, no one was any the wiser. It was "Yes of course, that is the target, but..."

Hugh Rayner, who is also a reasonably useful committee member drew attention to the fact that the auditors used terms like "Reasonably good, quite satisfactory" a lot. They never said "outstanding or marvellous"  Why was this Hugh asked (he could have asked a few bloggers who were sitting in the audience and we'd have told him for far less than the rate Grant Thornton charge). The auditors replied rather diplomatically "We said this, because this is how auditors describe things". Barnet Council officer Maria Christophou (excuse any misspelling) chipped in "of 19 categories in the report, 16 have been flagged as green and only 3 amber, that speaks volumes" with pride. She seems to think that it is OK that three of the audit criteria being at risk is something to be proud of. If my car had an MOT and they said 16 categories were fine, but the brakes were at risk of failing, the tyres were nearly bald and the subframe was in danger of collapse through corrosion , would you buy the care from me? Sorry Maria, boast about it when 19 categories are green. If three are at risk, then over 15% of the criteria is not working properly and that is a major failure.

Then there was a question about budget performance. Why was this amber? The man from audit stated that this was because they had underspent £49.5 million on the schools infrastructure budget. This is a scandal. Barnet is struggling to find places to accomodate our children and educate them, yet they have £49.5 million sitting in the bank, because they are to incompetent to organise the work. This money hasn't been cut or saved, it just hasn't been spent on allocated projects, because the council is too useless to get its act together. If you are a parent with a child about to apply for a school place, bear this in mind.

A question was asked about One Barnet. The man from Grant Thornton made a stunning revelation, which nobody (apart from me apparently) seemed to pick up on. "There is no such thing as "The One Barnet project" there are just lots of different outsourcing projects lumped together under the name. The One Barnet project is really many projects, each with a different objective and outcome". Various bloggers have commented that One Barnet may have a name change. It seems that Grant Thornton have a better idea, abolish it all together and replace it with lots of Mini Multi Barnets. Lord Palmer said he opposed One Barnet, but it wasn't his job to make the decision. He then said he could run the Council far better than the current administration. Everyone in the room laughed, some ironically, some mockingly and some (like me) because for all his faults, he's probably right. Then again Kermit the frog could probably run it better than the current administration.

Geof Cook  asked a question was asked as to why only contracts greater than £25K were on SAP, and why the contract register was on an excel spreadsheet, wouldn't it be better if all contracts were on SAP, so there wasn't duplicate entries. The man from Grant Thornton said  "I'm always in favour of efficiency". Cook asked if having two systems, meant twice the errors. Head of Audit, MaryEllen Salter replied, that you'd get the same rate of errors if you only had one system. I flet like saying that you'd have twice as long to check it though, so more chance of getting it right, but we the public merely watch like goldfish.

The last question I heard was from Geoff Cook. He asked about the parking fiasco and the 7% drop in revenues. Lord Palmer pointed out that the audit report only went up until September, before the fiasco was implemented. Geof Cook suggested it would be good if the audit committee could get involved before things went completely tits up. Lord Palmer suggested this was actually quite a good idea and that maybe they could have more meetings. A certain council officer rolled her eyes and had the look of someone who'd rather be eaten by crocodiles.

And that my friends, is the point at which I bade everyone a fond goodbye.

When I got home, I received an email from a friend who stayed. It was entitled "Whitewash" and simply had the text "What can you say".

Indeed. We have video'd the meeting. Strangely, its only when I watch this again that I realise the full terrible truth of what Barnet Council really is like. watch this space

Barneteye TV - Barnet Council - Localism Debate

Here are a couple of speeches from the debate on localism at the Barnet Council meeting on 13th September.

I've focussed on the speeches by Lib Dem Lord Monroe Palmer and Councillor Kath McGuirk. There were other speeches, but to be honest, these were the only ones worth listening to in my opinion. Lord Palmer makes an excellent case for a return to the Committee system. Labour Councillor McGuirk, gives a good example of how to put a well reasoned case. You may like to watch the behaviour of Brian Coleman at around 7.30. Most rude. McGuirk also highlight the rudeness of the treatment residents at a recent planning meeting by the Council.

These speeches show that there is a place for sensible debate in the Council chamber. I would have also put up Councillor Daniel Thomas speech, but trust me, that's five minutes of your life you'd never get back.


Two interesting things to note. The Tories are obviously a little scared and envious of Lord Palmer these days. He is where they aspire to be,especially Councillor Brian Coleman  (The Lords). Before his peerage they used to give him short shrift.. An example of what happens when you just get on with doing the job. As for McGuirk. They are also clearly scared of her, probably because she's feisty and intelligent. Apart from Coleman, who has no manners at all, the rest of them behaved themselves. I suspect one day, in the not too distant future, McGuirk will go on to greater things.

Lord Palmers amendment was passed (with slight amendments  to look at a return to the Committee system), I'm sure you can work out the rest for yourself !

Barnet Council Metpro Scandal - The zombie councillors who represent us

A recent news report stated that Leicester Council had responded to an FOI request asking whether they had plans to thwart an attack by Zombies. They confessed that none existed. I wonder if it is too late for Barnet and the Zombies have already taken over at the Town Hall. Have they been spiked with ZOMBIE CUCUMBER sandwiches, to create passive vegetables who are pliant to the whims of the executive?

I ask this because I was completely disgusted to find that following the email I sent to all of our councillors, regarding the Metpro Scandal yesterday, of 63 Councillors, not a single one responded. You may think "Why should councillors bother to respond to emails from awkward bloggers"? Well the chair of the Audit Committee, Lord Monroe Palmer, praised the bloggers of Barnet to the hilt at the Audit Committee, stating that the scandal would not have come to light without our efforts. He put on public record the fact that we'd done a massive service for the people of Barnet. I started to get paranoid, thinking that maybe the Council had blocked the email. I rang a councillor who I am friendly with, to ask whether they had received the email?
Their response was even more shocking. They said "Yes". I expressed my surprise that not a single councillor had responded. They said "Oh, I think that's because we got an email shortly after saying we shouldn't respond to it". I was livid. I asked my friendly councillor if they could forward me this email, exactly what it said and who sent it. They realised they'd told me something they probably should have and said "I don't think I can do that".

So in Barnet, unknown forces can tell the people I elected to represent me, and who's allowances I pay, that they are not allowed to respond to a perfectly reasonable email I sent them, even though the chair of the Audit committee agrees that we are performing a vital service.

I am not prepared to take this sort of treatment. I believe it infringes my democratic rights. I was highly impressed by the contribution of my Mill Hill ward Tory Councillor, Brian Schama and wish to discuss this further with him. I do not want to see Mr Schama put under undue pressure. Today I sent this email to the FOI department. I will of course publish any response - and when Lord Palmer lays on the buffet in thanks for the efforts of the local bloggers,I will of course avoid the cucumber sarnies !
-------------------------------

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Tichborne

To: Freedom of Information Act

Cc: Nick.Walkley@barnet.gov.uk ; Cornelius, Cllr Richard Conservative

Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 9:46 AM

Subject: Email to Councillors

Dear Freedom of Information,

Yesteday I sent the attached email to the CEO of Barnet and all Barnet Councillors. I have been informed that shortly after, an email was sent to councillors asking them not to respond to this communication. Please send me a copy of this email, detailing who it was from and who it was sent to. I would like to remind Barnet Council that the chair of the audit commitee praised my efforts (and those of other bloggers) in exposing the Metpro fiasco. I trust that all concerned would like to expose bad practise in Barnet Council.

Regards

Roger Tichborne

Metpro Scandal - Barnet Council, a model of openness, decency and transparency

The blog I am about to write will probably shock regular readers - Please sit down before reading - This is not a full report, it just gives you a flavour of the atmosphere.

Tonight, the Barnet Council Audit committee, under the chairmanship of the ubiquitous Lord Palmer, met to discuss the report into the Metpro Scandal. Had a friend from Mars, who had never experienced the workings of Barnet Council before attended, he would have been mightily impressed at the way we do business in Barnet.

Let me set the scene. Of all the various committees in Barnet Council, the Audit committee is probably the dryest, most technical and dullest. It is the only chair which is occupied by an opposition councillor (to ensure a degree of fair play). The meetings are long and rather unexciting. Generally members are sent there because the leader doesn't like them (or because they are accountants who enjoy such jobs). On a good day, one or two members of the public may turn up (one of which is ex Councillor Daniel Hope). Tonight was different.

Tonight the public gallery had maybe 35 people in it, including most of the Barnet bloggers. It started with Lord Palmer praising the efforts of Citizens and bloggers. Without them the scandal would not have been uncovered. Now whilst Lord Palmer isn't the worlds most charismatic chairman, he tried to give lengthy and detailed explanations. He promised to provide written copy of answers, he answered a couple of extra questions. My Martian friend was impressed at such a diligent and decent chair. Then the head of audit presented her report. No punches pulled. The whole system of managing contractors in Barnet is a mess. It doesn't work (or at least there is no evidence that it does work). My Martian friend commented that on his planet such things were hushed up. Then Brian Schama, a Tory Councillor asked his questions. They could have not been more peircing. A whole bevvy of lefty bloggers burst into spontaneous applause when he finished. My Martian friend commented that on Mars, the politics are partisan. He was most impressed. Councillor Hugh Rayner, another Tory asked if the details of questions would be made public. More applause. Hugh Rayner said that he wasn't an expert, but seemed most upset that such a damning report could be written about his council - Such concern for the taxpayer and the openness of the process. My Martian friend commented that in his council on Mars, councillors treated taxpayers with contempt.
John Dix, AKA Mr Reasonable addressed the committee for five minutes. He ran out of time mid sentence. Lord Palmer graciously allowed him to finish what he was saying. Councillors from both the Tory and Labour groups asked him sensible questions. The independent member of the committee spoke, again making complete sense. My friend from Mars was even more impressed. This Barnet Council is a model of openness, decency and transparancy he commented.

After approx an hour and a half of unending scathing comments about the Council, I had to leave. The meeting went on for at least 2 more hours. I must applaud Councillors Palmer, Schama, Cook  and Rayner for doing their very best to conduct the meeting with decorum.  Unlike many Barnet Council meetings (which my Martian friend hasn't attended), the public were treated with respect. There was no attempt to prevent the public from filming the meeting and the public were acknowledged for their positive contribution to Barnet.

The audit committee announced that it was not their role to instigate disciplinary proceedings. That is batted back to the Council officials, who have to discipline themselves and their peers. At long last the Councillors of Barnet get it. The system doesn't work. No one seemed more unimpressed than Brian Schama. The questions he asked could have been written in this blog by yours truly. The Audit report shows failure and negligence. It revealed that many of the important issues couldn't be answered. It wasn't clear whether this was due to negligence or conspiracy. I do wonder whether the answers may be more forthcoming under Police caution.

So what has Lord Palmers audit established. Perhaps the most important thing for me is that it has shown that Barnet Council can conduct it's business without insulting, patronising or haranging the public. It shows that the public are interested. Then there are a couple of minor, subsidiary issues.

It shows that the Council processes are not up to the job of managing the existing contracts, let alone a whole new swathe in the One Barnet Process.

And the least important thing that was said all night was a throwaway comment by Lord Palmer. He said that Barnet Councillors have 3 auditors as permanent staff plus another 1.5 people available from outside firms. This for a business with a £1 billion turnover and 220,000 people who deal with it. Lord Palmer saidthis was hopelessly inadequate. Of the 100's of suppliers, they were only auditing 10 !!! They had to pull staff away from other vital work to do the Metpro audit. In short, they do not have the manpower to prevent fraud, abuse and incompetence. As I said, a nice meeting where nothing much happened.

Stand up for the most influential man in Barnet !!!!

So who do you think the most influential man in Barnet is? Here's a few possible suggestions :-

Richard Cornelius -  On the ascendency. He's just seen off the Councillor officers hot favourite, Andrew Harper in the Leadership race.

Nick Walkley - CEO of Barnet Council. The man driving the One Barnet program (over the cliff in many people's opinion)

Mike Freer - Finchley and Golders Green MP, original architect of the One Barnet scheme and the man with a van.

John Burgess - Influential Barnet Unison leader and the main opposition to the One Barnet program

Neil Basu - Metropolitan Police Commander for Barnet.

Tom Nathan - managing director of Brent Cross

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd have picked one of those, not quite sure which, but you could make a case for any of them being given the title. I got a call today from a large news organisation, can't say who, sworn to secrecy. They were trying to find out if there is a story worthy of national coverage somewhere in the Metpro story. Whilst us Barnetites are currently obsessed, why would someone in Halifax, Hillingdon or the Hebrides be interested? My answer? Because it should inspire citizens to stand up to bad councils, to investigate abuses and not to be fobbed off. I think that Metpro would make a great BBC drama (assuming they make such things). It is  a great whodunnit and we don't even know the ending. A whole host of citizens have played a roll and I will probably write a screenplay for it, when I have time. I'm pretty set on the idea of staging it at next years Edinburgh festival (we'll know the ending by then). It would make a great citizen detective story.

I digress. So did they agree that it is nationally newsworthy? I've honestly got no idea. I am sincerely hoping that they turn up on Thursday. They asked what I expected to happen? Would there be fireworks? I said "Guaranteed. Either the committee will rip up the floorboards and expose the whole charade or their will be (a Barnet style rather genteel) riot in the public gallery." We have come too far to get fobbed off. If we are fobbed off, I know for a fact that Barnet Council will have made a very bad move. The scandal has been brewing for three months and show no sign of abating.  The whole sorry mess and the it unfolded is chronicled in greater detail than any scandal since Watergate, in this and other blogs. I think the story is rather empowering and shows the value of blogs, citizen journalists and whistle blowers.

So anyway, there's me giving the hard sell on why a National News organisation should attend and I get asked a completely ridiculous question - "Do you think you are the most influential person in Barnet?" My response "Sorry, I didn't hear that". The question was repeated. My response "Don't be ridiculous, I just write a blog". I was asked "Yes, but it is quite clear that there are a whole gang of bloggers, who quite clearly are working together". Absolutely correct, but thats what we are - working together. I pointed out that there was no structure and no leadership. "But you are the most established of these bloggers". Well I suppose I'm the most prolific, but what does that mean. Then they pointed out a few successes (they had done their homework) in the last year, all of which can be directly attributable to campaigns started by Barnet bloggers.

The Allowancegate climbdown on cabinet expenses.
The Library review being watered down from Councillor Ramsbottoms original comments - Barnet has faired far better than other London Boroughs with equally stupid policies.
The Exposition of the Metpro Scandal.
Getting Brian Coleman's LFEPA expenses exposed and slapped down by Boris
The defeat of Councillor Andrew Harper in the Tory Leadership campaign.

In actual fact that is a pretty impressive list of victories. Yes, I think us Barnet bloggers have done pretty well. I don't take personal credit for any of this. Sure, I've put hard work into it, but so has everyone else who has helped. I don't want plaudits, or anything other than Barnet council to clean up it's act. Will all of the Audit committee stand up when I enter the room, in respect for my achievements. I sincerely hope not. What I will say is this. Over the last few years, since I started the blog, I think I've got quite good at it. I think that there this blog has inspired a few other people to write blogs (which are far better than this). I think that collectively, the blogs of Barnet are a powerful influence. I like to think of us as a Hydra, many headed and all equally deadly, equally influential and equally important. If one doesn't get what it wants, there's a whole host of others digging away.

And most of all I think that if justice isn't seen to be done on Thursday at the audit committee , then the people responsible will see just how influential this Barnet Hydra really is. Be assured of that !

Barnet Council Metpro Scandal - The questions that haven't been answered ** Updated

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

Barnet Council : Metpro Scandal - Public Statement from Concerned Citizens

MetPro and Barnet Council: contract failures call One Barnet Programme into question 

On 16th June the Audit Committee of Barnet Council will meet to discuss the findings of its audit of the circumstances surrounding the MetPro Rapid/Emergency Response scandal. The signatories of this statement believe that, while it is far from a suitable way to address the issues raised, the audit is likely to expose shortcomings in Barnet Council’s ways of working that will lend force to our call for a full, independent investigation into the Council’s relationship with the MetPro companies. 

Those responsible for the failure to regulate the Council's relationship with MetPro are in many cases the same people assisting with the review. As such they have a vested interest in the outcome. We believe that this review is therefore not likely to be sufficiently objective, however useful its findings might be. 

Despite assurances from Lord Palmer we are not satisfied that the audit will cover all the problems revealed by the MetPro case, particularly those pertaining to breaches of residents’ data protection rights and their potential exposure to harm through contact with inadequately regulated security staff. 

Furthermore, we believe that the MetPro case proves conclusively that there is systemic failure in Barnet Council’s purchasing and vendor management systems and processes. 

Given this, we believe that it would be grossly negligent to allow a major outsourcing programme such as the One Barnet Programme to proceed. 

We suspect that, far from being an isolated case, the irregularities in the Council’s relationship with the MetPro companies are likely to be an indication of serious mismanagement on a much larger scale. We call for a full investigation not only into the general process of contract tendering and allocation but also into the role played by respective responsible Directors. Our own investigations so far suggest that this would result in major cost savings for Barnet Council and Barnet Council taxpayers. 

With regard to the MetPro audit, we have identified the following significant areas of concern and we ask the audit committee to address these questions: 

1. Does your audit review show failings that have been identified and reported to the Council officers previously by Internal Audit? For example, the Head of Internal Audit reported to the Audit Committee (29 September 2009, Item 8, pages 30-31) that the then Director of Major Projects (Mr Craig Cooper) had confirmed that an effective spend analysis monitoring and monthly vendor monitoring processes were in place. See link below to access the report: 

http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=8541 

2. Did the Directors agree to take actions to address reported failings? 

3. Did the Directors fail to take actions to address reported failings? 

4. Why did the Directors not take actions when they were supposed to? 

5. What will the Audit Committee do to stop recurrence where Directors fail to address reported failings on time?

On the wider subject of the systemic failings of Barnet Council, we ask that the CEO Nick Walkley immediately institute the following measures: 

I. A moratorium on all One Barnet Programme work, until such time as system failings can be shown to have been addressed. 

II. A full investigation into the tendering process and the role played by the relevant responsible directors.

III. A review of the payment process including any transaction where purchase order was raised after receipt of an invoice. 

IV. A process where all retrospective purchase orders are sent to executive level for sign off and review. 

V. A full review of the democratic oversight process, to ensure that similar serious irregularities cannot occur in future. As concerned residents we believe that these measures will go some way toward restoring public confidence in Barnet Council and, moreover, will save the taxpayers of Barnet a significant amount of money. We ask all Councillors, regardless of Party affiliation, to support all of the above measures. 

Letter to Councillors signed by: 

Derek Dishman 

John Dix 

Vicki Morris 

Theresa Musgrove 

Roger Tichborne

Lord Monroe Palmer and the future of Liberalism in Barnet

Lib Dem Peer, Lord Monroe Palmer leads the Barnet Council audit committee. In June, the committee will meet to discuss the findings of the audit committee investigation into the Metpro Rapid Response Ltd inquiry. Many people, myself included, believed that this inquiry should have been undertaken by an independent team. Lord Monroe Palmer has an extremely difficult job on his hands. At stake is not only the reputation of Barnet Council, but also the future of the Lib Dems in Barnet. At the least elections, the number of Councillors was halved from 6 to 3. These consist of Lord Palmer, Suzette Palmer (his wife) and Jack Cohen. They all represent Child Hill ward. before the last election there were two in Mill Hill (Wayne Casey and Jeremy Davies) and one in High Barnet (Duncan MacDonald).

As I stood for the Lib Dems in Mill Hill, I am on good terms with many local members and voters. It is fair to say that in Mill Hill, many have been alienated by the coalition. Many have said to me "What is the point of the Lib Dems?". I have always stoutly defended the record of the local Lib Dems at Council Level. It is also true to say that many people (especially many local Conservative voters) have told me that they bitterly regret the fact that Jeremy Davies lost his seat. Sadly none of these people are actually ever going to vote Lib Dem next time.

Which brings me to the point. There is only likely to be one issue where the local Lib Dems can actually make a difference in Barnet. This is with Lord Palmers chairmanship of the Metpro inquiry. If he ensures that the whole sorry business is exposed and the lessons of this disasterous outsourcing project applied across the board, then maybe, just maybe, when people say "What is the point of voting Lib Dem?", activists will be able to say "Well look how they sorted out the Metpro fiasco". I am not going to tell Lord Palmer what to do, say or what findings to make. I will tell him this though. If he does an exemplary job, which the fair minded and honest voters of Barnet see to have done the job, then he has made his point for an independent third force.

If he blows it, then as far as I'm concerned, that is it for the Barnet Lib Dems.