The Friday Picture - Metpro Rapid Response on Guard for Barnet Council

Here's a great picture of Metpro Group Staff on guard at Barnet Council Offices. You can find more great pictures of Barnet's most famous security service here. If you need 24 X 7 cover from an elite force of highly trained security operatives, then get in touch now - http://www.metprogroup.co.uk/contact.php?p=5

Just how useless is Eric Pickles?

Has there ever been a more useless minister than Eric Pickles? The local government secretary is possibly the worst minister ever to darken the doors of Parliament. Pickles claims to be a supporter of localism and empowering local communities to prevent abuse by council executives and dodgy councils. Anyone who has followed the Metpro crisis would know that this is probably the biggest scandal in local government in the UK.

We have sent several communications to Pickles. We have not even had an acknowledgement. Not only is this rude, but it is indicative of a secretary who doesn't want to know. Why? Because he supports the Easycouncil ideology of Barnet Council and so he doesn't want to see it's failings exposed. Has Pickles read the audit report? He damn well should. He may be all for privatisation, but if he is so evangelical in it's support that he doesn't want to know the pitfalls of such a policy, then he just isn't up to the job.

Localism can only work with checks and balances. If Barnet was a school, OFSTED would put it in special measures. As it stands, Pickles is a disgrace and his behaviour could cost David Cameron dear.

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 - The Audit report is published

Just read this from the Audit report into the Metpro Scandal :-

Award of contract and review of contract service specification

No procurement exercise had been undertaken to appoint MetPro, in accordance with the Council’s CPR.

No written contract between the Council and MetPro could be found.

There is no record of an approval and authorisation for the use of MetPro for providing security services.

In the absence of a formal procurement exercise, we could not locate the following documents/confirmation for MetPro, which the CPR require:

·           Financial viability of the company

·           Equal Opportunities Assessment

·           Criminal Records Bureau checks

·           Confirmation of company’s Public Liability Insurance arrangements

·           Confirmation of the company’s Health and Safety registration

·           Confirmation on the SIA licence status of the Company Officers

·           An agreed specification which outlined the service to be provided

·           An agreed schedule of rates for payment of invoices

·           A process for monitoring performance of service delivery to establish if the Council was receiving value for money

There has been a failure to comply with the Council’s Policies and Procedures with regards to roles and responsibilities. Officers interviewed had assumed a corporate contract was in place and relevant checks on MetPro had therefore been undertaken. Recently, from September 2010, assurance was given to officers we interviewed that a corporate contract was being procured by the CPT as they were aware at that time that no contract was in place with MetPro. At the time of writing this report this procurement exercise had not started, however a detailed specification existed.

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

This is a catalog of failure. Nick Walkley as CEO and Andrew Harper as acting leader for the last six months have to carry the can. Do I need to tell them what an honourable management team would do?

And having read the report, it is clear that a full independent investigation of the way Barnet Council procures services is required. This council is rotten. It is not a political issue anymore, it is a full blown scandal. I call on all Tories, Labour and Lib Dem Councillors to read this and SORT THIS MESS OUT. The various bloggers of Barnet have uncovered this mess, pushed to have the truth exposed and now we know what the story is with Metpro, we need to see evidence that the whole way the council does business is being reformed. This will quite clearly save the council and you and I an absolute fortune.

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

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.

Metpro Scandal - Grant Thornton's reponsibilities

The following extract is from a cabinet report detailing the terms of reference for Grant Thornton Barnet Council's auditors, presented to the Barnet Council Cabinet on Feb 17th. Given that the Council were giving Metpro Rapid Response Ltd over a Million pounds without a proper contract being in place, I look forward to seeing what Grant Thornton have to say :-

Needless to say, the bloggers of Barnet will be keeping a beady eye on what Grant Thornton have to say. I'm sure they will be thrilled to know. I must get round to seeing what the audit was meant to do last year, in regards to paying companies with no contract in place, no proper agreement and no monitoring of their performance.

Barnet Council Metpro scandal - A Tory backbencher speaks

One of the more friendly and sensible Barnet Tory backbench councillors spoke to me over the weekend about Metpro. They asked not to be named in the blog, but were happy to have their views repeated. They agreed that Metpro was probably one of the biggest cock ups since the Tories took over in 2002. I asked whether they thought an independent public inquiry would be more appropriate than the current audit committee investigation "We had an independent investigation into the Underhill sale. It achieved nothing and cost nearly a million pounds. We didn't want a repeat of that". I asked if councillors should have got a proper grip on the situation "Councillors don't decide who we give contracts to or how they are administered". But Metpro didn't have a contract, I pointed out. "That's why we've got the audit committee checking it out". I asked what he expected the audit committee to find "It is pretty clear that we need better controls in place and we need to ensure that companies are properly accredited. To be honest, you don't need an independent investigator to tell you that, it's stating the obvious". I asked if the way the whole scandal has blow up has made Barnet CEO Nick Walkleys position untenable "He can't afford anything else like this to come up, being fair to Nick he's in a difficult position right now". I asked if he was referring to having to work with the Leader in absense Lynne Hillan "You really don't expect me to answer that question do you". And that was where we left it.

It is quite clear that Metpro is a major watershed. I am calling on Barnet Council to call a moratorium on the Future Shape program until the audit committee report is produced. If the council has inadequate processes in place for administering contractors, this needs to be fixed and to be shown to be fixed before any further contracts are outsourced. We can't afford any more Metpro scandals. From what I was told, the more sensible Conservative Councillors agree with this proposition. I think they are starting to wake up to the fact that they are sleepwalking towards a disaster.

Barnet Eye Weekly Round up - The great vote that wasn't

Firstly, if anyone wants to come down and say hello (or come down and thump me), weather permitting we'll be in Mill Hill Broadway promoting the forthcoming Mill Hill Music Festival between 11am and 1pm. We'll be wearing white t-shirts and handing out leaflets. Please have a look at the festival program. Dates run from 25th June - 2nd July and we have a fantastic selection of different genres of music - Classical, Opera, Rock, Jazz, Klezmer to name but a few

http://www.millhillmusicfest.co.uk/

Anyway, advert over. The big (non) event of the week was the AV vote. I think the attitude of the British public was succinctly summed up by an incident which happened when I went to cast my vote. I bumped into an elderly relative of mine, Uncle Michael. He was handed his ballot form, and stared at it in a rather puzzled fashion. He then said "Which one is Labour?". He asked the staff manning the polling booth, who tried to explain that it wasn't a party political vote. He asked them "Which one does Labour support?" They replied "We're not allowed to tell you". At this I intervened and said "The Conservatives want you to vote NO". At which he replied "I hate this new fangled rubbish" and went to cast his vote. I suspect that the vote wasn't a rejection of the AV system so much as the rejection of what people saw as a pointless change. It is clear to me that the Yes to AV campaign was a complete shambles. If I was Nick Clegg I'd have come out and made the point that if there is a lukewarm response, it would completely undermine the case for referendums generally. If we'd had a 90% turnout, campaigners for a vote on Europe could say "Look, there is a real taste for the people having their say". As it was, apathy ruled.  It is interesting that five London Boroughs bucked the National trend and voted yes. This is why I love London.

Perhaps the most interesting news in Barnet is the fact that next week Barnet Council staff in the revenue collection department are balloted for strike action. This is a strike which the Council really fears. It means they won't collect any cash to pay the bills for the army of consultants. Apparently the highly paid contractor who is 2nd in command at Barnet Mr A. T. Ravers is going bonkers about it. For the people of Barnet, this will be a popular strike as we'll all be able to hang on to our cash a little bit longer.

Another huge news story was the result of the 7/7 bombing inquiry. I revisted an article I wrote for the Hendon Times about this. I passed through Aldgate last week (I had to buy a mate a pint when I bought my cup final tickets from him). I paused for a split second by the memorial. A strange thought crossed my mind that all those fine people died, but Osama Bin Laden was still at large. It made me quite angry. I will be interested to see what my feelings are next time.

Our local MP, Matthew Offord was in the news, with his comments about an MP and a gagging order. In the last week or so, Matthew has certainly upped his work rate. He held a public meeting at Copthall School to discuss the Saracens move to Copthall Sports Centre. I was rather surprised that Matthew didn't notify me or ask me to come along. I would have thought that as this blog is widely read, it would have promoted interest in the issue. I only found out that the event was taking place, late in the afternoon on the day. As I'd made other arrangements, I couldn't make it. I queried why Offord hadn't given me notice, so I could publicise it, with one of his lackeys. The response didn't surprise me "Brian Coleman was on the platform and he didn't want you turning up". I find this rather sad. I stood as a candidate in the Mill Hill council elections and it would have been good manners to at least notify me. It just shows that Offord and Coleman were not seeking a genuine local debate, but a political platform to promote their own careers. I worked with the previous Tory MP, Sir John Gorst on the campaign to save Edgware General Hospital. I was impressed by his attitude to the issue. He genuinely wanted to work across the political spectrum to achieve the best for his constituents. He shared a platform with the then Barnet Council Labour Leader, Alan Williams, at a rally I helped organise in Burnt Oak. It was a lesson Offord would do well to heed.

The Metpro Scandal rumbles on. I have not yet received a response to my FOI requests sent on 9th April, which are now late. They acknowledged it thus on the 11th April. Sadly the council cannot meet its legal obligation to respond in a timely manner. Even more annoying, they misspelt my name, but to be fair Niall Toru did realise and immediately apologised.

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

Dear Mr Tichbourne ,

Thank you for your request received by us on 9 April 2011, for the following information:

“details of all external contractors involved in the following activities on behalf of Barnet Council.

1.     Filming residents/employees/councillors without their permission

2.     Recording residents without their permission

3.     performing any other covert survelliance of residents

4.     Monitoring personal blogs/twitter/facebook pages on the internet

To minimise cost, please provide details from April 2010.

Please summarise the cost to the taxpayer of Barnet for these services.

Please specify which senior officers and councillors accessed to this information.

Please specify who signed off the contract at Barnet for the provision of these services and when this contract was signed.”

We are processing this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Under the Act we must respond promptly and in any event within 20 working days from the date we received your request.

Please note the Act defines a limited set of exemptions from the right to know.  If we decide not to release any information we shall explain why, which exemption we are relying on and how you can appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Niall Toru
Governance Officer

Corporate Governance Directorate
London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7080
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

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

Anyway, I wait with baited breath for their response next week. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Barnet Council - More Metpro questions

Metpro - The Scandal that won't go away

I have been supplied a list of questions sent to Barnet Council via an FOI request, pertaining to the Metpro scandal. I'm sure everyone will be most interested to see the answer to these.
----------------------------------------------------------
1) Please can you tell me if at time since 2006 The London Borough of Barnet has advertised in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations Act 2006 for the supply of any form of security services to the Borough in general or specifically for any of its premises or sites directly owned or leased from other landlords and managed by the Council?

2) Have any advertisements been placed in the prescribed format for the provision of any security service contracts to any part of the Council’s operations in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union?

3) Was any Council officer(s) aware when it let the original contract to Metpro Rapid response that payments to that company might exceed the threshold of £153,000 over the ensuing four years?

4) Which officer(s)?

5) Once it became apparent that the payments to Metpro would exceed the threshold and open public tender would be required,  which officer(s) took the decision not to put the work out to public tender as required by the above Regulations?

6) In the light of the experience gained between 2006 and 2011 was the contract to let the contract in 2011 to Metpro Emergency Response put out to tender in accordance with the above Regulations ( the threshold is £156,442 from  2010)

7) Since 2006 which officer(s) has overall  responsibility for ensuring that contracts are let in accordance with the relevant legislation?

8)What policies and procedures have been in place since 2006 to ensure that all staff placing orders, entering into arrangements or letting tenders to suppliers of goods, services and contracts comply with the Public Contract Regulations Act 2006?

9) Which officer(s) has responsibility for monitoring that any policies are implemented in full?

10) How are exceptions to any procedures monitored and to whom are they reported?
----------------------------
We await the answers from Jeff Lustig and Nick Walkley with interest.

Barnet Council - Memo to Nick Walkley

Dear Nick,

I have a suggestion. Please have a chat with someone within the legal department, preferably the person who you trust most and think is best qualified. Ask them this :-

"Please explain to me in words of one syllable the term 'duty of care' "

I think you'll find doing a little bit of homework on the subject may come in very useful. I've just had a very interesting chat with someone who is rather well qualified on this very subject. I found it rather fascinating. We walked through a couple of scenarios related to Barnet Council. I wonder if any of my legion of readers could guess what those could be? As the old saying goes, you learn something every day !!!!!

Barnet Council : Metpro Scandal

A few more rather interesting things.

Just when I thought the Metpro Scandal could get no murkier, Mrs Angry reports that Barnet Council have admitted that the CCTV footage of the Council meeting on 1st March, which they claim to have destroyed, was a copy.Mrs Angry also reports that the Council have admitted that they never bothered to check the SIA registrations or CRB status of the Metpro staff, even though they were clearly working with vulnerable people.

Another rather interesting fact was brought to my attention last week. Now I have no idea whether this is relevant to anything, but the head of audit, who will be responsible for overseeing the work of the Audit Committee is Maryellen Salter. It appears that Ms Salter joined Barnet Council in October. I was rather interested to be informed that she is an ex employee of Barnet Council's auditors, Grant Thornton. Does this matter? Well Grant Thornton have been responsible for auditing Barnet Council. They have presumably signed off on accounts with the payment of large invoices to Metpro Rapid Response Ltd. (Metpro Rapid Response have been a supplier of Barnet Council since 2006, working without a proper contract).

Does the fact that the person leading the enquiry for Barnet Council worked for the people who were meant to ensure that Barnet behaved in an above board manner matter? I'm sure Maryellen Salter is an exemplary auditor, I'm sure she will do the finest job possible. But I am also concerned that the whole thing may  APPEAR to be a rather, shall we say, incestuous inquiry.

Local residents have been pushing for an Independent inquiry for this very reason. No one is questioning the goodwill, abilities or intentions of any of the people conducting the inquiry. We just want it to be completely free of all vested interests and all possible suggestions of any party having an "pre existing interest" in the matter. I believe that it is in everyones interests to see  a credible and thorough inquiry, with no stone left unturned and full public confidence.

As the whole Metpro issue gets murkier and murkier, when will Nick Walkley wake up to the fact that the people involved in the internal inquiry are too close to the issue. What we need is a team which is independent and can either (hopefully) give Barnet Council a clean bill of health or alternatively identify the weaknesses in the processes and procedures. I'm not an expert on what auditors are meant to do, but given Grant Thornton's involvement with the Council, I'd suggest that people with no connection to the firm would be better placed to undertake the inquiry. This is not in any way because I have an issue with Grant Thornton, in fact they have done stirling work identifying major problems with the whole Future Shape/Easycouncil/Barnettrack process. I just feel that given the length of time Metpro Rapid Response Ltd had a business relationship with Barnet Council, we need an inquiry completely independent of all vested interests.

To me it completely beggars belief that the CEO of Barnet Council, Nick Walkley and the de facto leader of Barnet Council, Andrew Harper do not want an inquiry which will restore credibility. How can they possibly fail to see that a) The Audit Committe have missed all of this for years  b) Other members of the team have also missed things for years c) The head of audit has an association with the company responsible for signing off the accounts. When Councillors tell me it doesn't matter because they have a marvellous team, I have to ask - if that is so, how come we got into this mess in the first place

Barnet Council - Metpro Scandal - response from Lord Monroe Palmer

Following my email to Barnet Council yesterday, regarding the Metpro Inquiry, I received this response from the chair of the Audit Committee, Lord Monroe Palmer. Unlike the previous email from BArnet, Lord Palmer has answered the questions posed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Palmer, Cllr Monroe Liberal Democrat

To: Roger Tichborne 

Cc: Salter, Maryellen ; Walkley, Nick ; Bhania, Manjeet

Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:57 PM

Subject: RE: Metpro Rapid Response inquiry

Roger

As you can see I have been asked to respond. I will try to range beyond your questions.

Council voted against having an independent outside investigation.

As Chairman of Audit Committee I agreed with the Chief Executive that Internal Audit could deal with this matter. I have great confidence in our small Internal Audit Team.

I have not agreed  terms of reference, as to set out detailed terms of reference for the audit may hamper internal audit and the committee to exert their constitutional independence and professional expertise.

I asked the Deputy Head of Internal Audit (The Head is away for a few more days) to draft out a scope of the work to be undertaken. I have spoken to him both on the phone and at a one to one meeting today to agree the draft scope and to alter/add in some items I felt should be included. I will meet with Head of Internal Audit on May 4th

I asked Internal Audit to seek the opinion of Grant Thornton, Barnet’s external Auditors as to the work they feel should be carried out.

I have every reason to believe that the audit work will be in depth and hopefully will not be the very expensive exercise if the work is done by an outside body, whoever that might be.

Audit Committee is me, 4 Tory and two Labour Councillors + two Independent members of the committee. The committee never rubber stamps anything

However, what will happen is an Internal Audit, with perhaps some review from an outside body such as Grant Thornton. That’s not decided yet. I am floating various options and will discuss with Ms Maryellen Salter

It will come to the committee on 16^th June which will be in the public gaze. As to public speaking rights, I have no personal objection but need to hear the views of the Council lawyers which has been requested by the Chief Executive. I will press, if needed, for a space for public speaking rights. I will Chair the meeting

It is early days, but my guess is that at start of the meeting you and others may wish to speak and be questioned by the committee. Then the meeting continues as usual with only the Councillors speaking.

We may request Council officers/.members to be questioned. This will depend on results of the audit.

I would stress that this is an audit not an outside inquiry, so will proceed in accordance with Barnet’s constitution.

The terms of the scoping has been seen by Internal Audit and me. It has yet to be finalised. It is then my intention to share that, by email, with all the Committee Members. It would  be very inappropriate to share this more widely at this stage, although in due course everything should be made public.

What I need now is a bit of space in order to do ’my job’

Monroe

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have responded to Lord Palmer as follows :-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Monroe,

 

Thank you for your response.  I have no doubt that the audit committee will do a fine job within it's terms of reference and having yourself as chair of the inquiry is likely to add credibility that having a member of the ruling Party may lack. Without seeing the terms of reference of the inquiry, it is not possible to comment on how effictively the inquiry will address the matters. The following major issues have been identified, I trust you will work to ensure that all of these are covered by the terms of reference of the committee.

a) Metpro Rapid Response had been paid a total of £1.2 million pounds by Barnet Council, although there is apparently no evidence of a proper contract.

 

b) Barnet Council have been unable or unwilling to provide any evidence that such a large contract was ever properly tendered.

 

c) Barnet Council never sought documentary evidence that the Directors of Metpro Rapid Response Ltd were properly accredited by the SIA to run such a business.

 

d) Barnet Council never sought more than assurances that staff were CRB checked for work they undertook with vulnerable people.

 

e) Never asked Metpro Rapid Response Ltd staff to wear ID badges with SIA registration details, despite this being a legal requirement.

 

f) Were unaware that the company was undergoing liquidation proceedings, whilst continuing to work for Barnet Council.

 

g) Had transferred their business to another company Metpro Emergency Response Ltd (which had bought the database, assetts and Website of Metpro Emergency Response Ltd).

 

i) Were unaware that Metpro Rapid Response Ltd staff routinely and covertly filmed residents whilst undertaking work on behalf of Barnet Council.

 

j) Have claimed all such film was obtained and destroyed, even though it could contain footage of criminal activity.

 

k) Have subsequently stripped Metpro Emergency Response Ltd of the contract and awarded it to Blue 9 Security Ltd, using delegated powers (ie with no democratic oversight).

 

j) Have claimed that as of th 13th April the matter was not of public interest, despite numerous press articles, including an article in the Eevening Standard the day before (12th April).

 

l) Have claimed that the chair of the business Managament and Overview Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Hugh Rayner has discussed the issue of Metpro with nobody, despite this being a clear matter for his committee, indicating that Councillors have been kept in the dark.

 

m) Barnet Council refused to sanction a debate on the issue, which was asked for by Councillor Alison Moore, the Leader of the Labour Group.

 

n) Metpro Rapid Response Ltd have debts reportedly of over £245,000  to the inland revenue, which implies they have paid no tax at all on their income from Barnet Council.

 

o) Many FOI requests regarding the issue have been late or worse still, not responded to at all.

 

Given the number of issues with contractors working for Barnet Council, I happen to believe that the remit of the inquiry should be wider than just the issues with Metpro and look at the wider issues of commissioning of outsourced suppliers. Whilst I fully understand your desire to "get on with the job", I must point out that the whole sorry affair has only come to light as a result of local bloggers. Barnet Council was completely unaware of many of these issues until highlighted in local blogs. I am sure we all agree that it is a positive development that these issues have come to light and as such, rest assurred that myself and other local bloggers will continue digging to try and find more informantion, which may be of use to you.

 

I have taken the decision to share all official correspondence regarding this issue with the wider public on my blog, as I believe that the secrecy culture within Barnet must end.

 

I personally believe that an independent public inquiry was the only appropriate way forward, to regain the trust of the people of Barnet. This is not a comment on your abilities, which I hold in high regard, more a view that Barnet Council needs to have faith restored. I believe that only an independent public inquiry will do this, although I am also sure the inquiry you chair will do a fine job. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

 

Regards

Roger

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I need to state a few things. I believe that Lord Palmer will do a decent job of the internal inquiry. Although some people locally are suspicious, given the national Tory/Lib Dem links, there is no coalition in Barnet Town Hall. I believe that Lord Palmer is independent of the Tory ruling group. He is most certainly not subject to any whipping arrangements.

Having said that I am of the opinion that an independent public inquiry would have been seen to be open, honest and fair. If we can have a public inquiry about the Iraq war, there is no earthly reason why a Barnet inquiry into Metpro should be conducted in private or under the auspices of the Council. I intend to keep pressing for a fully independent inquiry. Without seeing the terms of reference, I cannot criticise them. We await these.

I am pleased that Lord Palmer has stated that he will support the right of the public to address the committee. Anything else would be scandalous.

I believe we should respect the work Lord Palmer and the audit committee are doing, but keep up the pressure for a widening of the scope, to ensure that the whole procurement process is reviewed. We must keep up the pressure for a public inquiry and we must keep digging.

We need to collate a file of evidence for the committee and also to present to Eric Pickles, Nick Clegg and David Cameron, along with our letter explaining why we demand an independent public inquiry.

One other matter Lord Palmer raises is the cost of an inquiry. Dodgy contracts which are badly drawn up have cost Barnet tens of millions of pounds. The whole procurement process is broken. Whilst an independent Inquiry, including teams of forensic auditors, may be expensive, it would send a signal that Barnet Council has to discharge its duties to the Taxpayer in a proper manner. In the long run, that will save the Taxpayer a fortune and improve the whole way the Council does business.

I have no faith in Barnet Council internal inquiries. In last years Elections, hundreds of voters were cheated out of their votes by Barnet Council being unable to make proper arrangements. The count was a fiasco, being held in freezing cold tents, without proper heating. All sorts of problems and irregularities were reported, including many by me to Nick Walkley, who was returning officer as well as CEO. I was never contacted by the inquiry and the final report concluded that Barnet Council had done a marvellous job. It was a complete whitewash.

That is why I am totally sceptical about this whole process.

Barnet Council :Metpro scandal - response to my email

They work for you.
----------------------------------------------------------

From: Bhania, Manjeet

To: Roger.Tichborne

Cc: Salter, Maryellen ; Walkley, Nick

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:50 AM

Subject: Metpro Rapid Response inquiry

Dear Mr Tichborne,
Further to your e-mail dated 19th April, please note that Maryellen Salter (Assistant Director of Finance, Audit and Risk Management) is currently on annual leave and I am  deputising in her absence.
The terms of reference and conduct of the inquiry are a matter for the Audit Committee.
Regards
Manjeet Bhania
Senior Principal Auditor, Finance Directorate, Audit and Risk ManagementLondon Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP
Tel: 020 8359 7155      Mobile: 07961 *** ***     Fax: 0870 889 6792    Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
P please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was the response from Barnet to the Email I sent yesterday and posted on this blog. Anyway, it is clear that I didn't make myself clear to Mr Bhania, so I sent the following email, hopefully so he now knows what I am asking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Bhania,

Thank you for your helpful and informative reply. Sadly it doesn't answer the two questions I asked. For the purposes of clarity, let me rephrase them.

1) Please can you tell me what the terms of reference are for the inquiry. I realise that these are a matter for the audit committee but I would like you tell me what they are (unless they are a secret). If they haven't been set yet, please can you tell me when they will be set and when you can tell me what they will be. If for some reason you are unable to provide this information, please can you forward it to the appropriate person who can.

2) Please can you inform me whether myself and other concerned residents will be able to address the committee. Again if you cannot answer this, please forward to the person who can.

I hope this email clears up any perceived misunderstanding as to what exactly I was asking

Regards

Roger Tichborne

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure whether the staff of Barnet Council realise that their is a crisis of credibility and trust in their competence, following a seemingly unending series of cock ups. They do have the opportunity to sort this out, by being open and honest with the people of Barnet and gviing proper answers to reasonable questions.

And as an aside, why is it that whenever there is a crisis in Barnet, the relevant person always seems to have just gone on holiday?

Barnet Council : Metpro Scandal - Time to let them know what we think

Today I emailed the head of audit at Barnet Council and the CEO. I want to know what the terms of reference are and I want to address the committee investigating it. As well as ensuring they know what the people of Barnet think the issues are, I also want them to know that an internal investigation is not appropriate and why.

I urge everyone who is unhappy with Barnet Council's handling of this scandal to do the same. Here's what I had to say :-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Tichborne

To: Maryellen.Salter@Barnet.gov.uk

Cc: Nick.Walkley@barnet.gov.uk

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:44 PM

Subject: Metpro Rapid Response inquiry

Dear Ms Salter,

 

As I believe you are head of corporate audit for Barnet Council, please can you email me as a matter of urgency detailing the terms of reference regarding the inquiry into Metpro Rapid Response Ltd and its relationship with Barnet Council. There are many issues raised by this internal inquiry and this is a matter of wide public interest. As a resident and Council Tax Payer, I am asking for the opportunity to address the inquiry personally.

 

Regards

Roger Tichborne