The Barnet Eye was most disturbed to read last week that the Council is selling the football pitches at Pavillion Way. What does not seem to have been mentioned to local members of the public is the fact that they can force the council to abandon the sale. You see there is a restrictive covenant on the Land in favour of Laings Land Limited. Laings were a large building company based for many years in Mill Hill. The Company were very progressively socially minded. They foresaw the day when a greedy council may try and cash in and sell the land, so they put a restrictive covenant in.
This covenant provides that the council cannot use the property except as sports pitches for use by the general public with ancillary changing rooms and parking and planted areas, all maintained at the Councils expense. Even more interesting is the fact that covenant is enforcable by all the individual owners of the housing estate to the south and east of the property.
Now has the council chosen to recognise the generosity of Laing's to the people of Burnt Oak and respect the wishes of their generous gift? Nope. Word reaches the Barnet Eye that a secret Council report has been published (which you are not allowed to see because it is "commercially sensitive") which contains advice for how the Council and property developers can get around the wishes of the benefactor.
We've been informed that there is an "Upper tribunal" that can release the covenant if it (i) Is obsolete or (ii) Impedes reasonable use of the land. Last time I looked, football was still our national sport and there is a shortage of facilities for sport in Barnet, so (i) is clearly invalid. As to (ii), the council are the ones trying to restrict the "reasonable use of the land". This is because the land is designated as sports facilities in an area that needs them. The council are trying to hoodwink the people out of their rightful inheritance, so that a few developers can line their pockets. It is quite frankly, disgusting.
I urge all owners of properties to the South and East of the site to inform the council that they wish to enforce the covenant. Furthermore, I ask them to insist the council fulfill their part of the bargain and maintain the covenant as agreed.
The Barnet Eye will be keeping a keen eye on this one. It is clear that the council cannot be trusted to look after the people of Barnet.
Monday, 11 November 2013
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Councillor Hugh Rayner scrutinising the One Barnet Contract (before the Council gave Capita a £16.1 Million bung)
Last week the Barnet Eye had the temerity to suggest that Councillor Hugh Rayner do his job properly as the chair of the Business Management and Overview Committee (a post which attracts a juicy allowance). Word reaches the Barnet Eye that Hugh is slightly miffed that we've been so beastly to him, as it ain't his fault guv'nor, it was another committee who should have dun the screwtiny (cos it most certainly looks like we've been screwedeedoo'd).
We are endebted to the Barnet Bugle for recording for posterity some rather nice footage of Hugh Rayner in action, showing us just how good he is at his job and how he'll stop us getting done over.
Does the explanation sound reassuring to you. In light of the £16.1 million cash bung, do you think Cllr Rayner pressed the point home hard enough? Of course Councillor Rayner is not the only councillor who has to answer questions. He is however the one who was ultimately responsinble for scrutiny of the process of managing the contractors. He clearly had concerns, so the question is did he do enough to reassure himself that the Barnet Taxpayer would not get screwed over. The Barnet Bugle has done an excellent job recording this for posterity so we can all judge for ourself the answer.
The great thing about the One Barnet Process is that due to diligent work of various bloggers and citizens such as the Barnet Bugle, there is a public record of all this.
We are endebted to the Barnet Bugle for recording for posterity some rather nice footage of Hugh Rayner in action, showing us just how good he is at his job and how he'll stop us getting done over.
Does the explanation sound reassuring to you. In light of the £16.1 million cash bung, do you think Cllr Rayner pressed the point home hard enough? Of course Councillor Rayner is not the only councillor who has to answer questions. He is however the one who was ultimately responsinble for scrutiny of the process of managing the contractors. He clearly had concerns, so the question is did he do enough to reassure himself that the Barnet Taxpayer would not get screwed over. The Barnet Bugle has done an excellent job recording this for posterity so we can all judge for ourself the answer.
The great thing about the One Barnet Process is that due to diligent work of various bloggers and citizens such as the Barnet Bugle, there is a public record of all this.
Remembrance Sunday
As is customary this year, the Barnet Eye takes pause on this day to reflect on those who fell in conflicts around the world, fighting to defend our freedom. Let us remind ourselves what exactly we are remembering. We are remembering others who made a sacrifice for us. None of the brave men and women who enlisted or were called up went to war with the intention of dying. They all hoped to come back to a better world. That they didn't live to see the better world they created is their gift to us, therefore we should, if we are to have any dignity, pause at this time to offer our thanks
So this morning, I made my way to John Keble Church, where my sons Scout troop were participating in the Remembrance Sunday service. I must say it was a moving service, with a beautiful choir and a bugler to sound the last post. The church was packed and it was great to see every generation represented and respectfully recalling those who went before us.
After the service finished, we made our way to the Welsh Harp, where we'd been invited by the C/O of TS Broadswords Sea Training Corps to attend their Remembrance Sunday Lunch. We did a blog featuring the activities of TS Broadsword here - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/best-in-barnet-focus-on-training-ship.html - and it was great to see Commander Beck and the crew again. I was lucky enough to find myself on a very special table with a young lady who was the newest member of the corps. Her parents were originally from Romania, settling in the UK eleven years ago, shortly before the birth of their daughter. It is a great testament to the strength of our country that we welcome people. She was called out and given a special mention during the speeches. When I see all of the fine young people attending such services, it gives me great hope for our society and our future.
Usually I have celebrated Remembrance Sunday watching my son play in goal for Watling FC youth team. This year I couldn't as I'd made the other arrangements, but I was proud to hear that both Watling and Yeading FC (their opponents) proudly respected a minute silence prior to kick off. I always enjoy rereading the blogs from previous years about remembrance Sunday that I've posted - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=remembrance+Sunday - and I hope that the readers of this blog feel the same way.
As a nation we have much to be proud of and many people, no longer around to be grateful to. There are however plenty of ex service people and families who need help. Sadly this country does not look after our ex servicemen in a manner I believe they should. For this reason I have no hesitation in asking you to donate some of your hard earned cash to the Royal British legion -
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/how-to-give?
At the service at John Keble, there was an interview during the service with a retired scnior General from the British Army. He expressed the hope that one day we won't need armed forces and we'll find better ways to sort out our differences. Sadly looking at the world today, that day seems a long way off.
One final word. On the back of the order of service at John Keble Church was an appeal for funds. The Church is a hub of the community, hosting scouts, cubs, guides etc. It also hosts a homeless shelter during Barnets cold winter months. Please consider a donation - http://www.johnkeble.org.uk/
So this morning, I made my way to John Keble Church, where my sons Scout troop were participating in the Remembrance Sunday service. I must say it was a moving service, with a beautiful choir and a bugler to sound the last post. The church was packed and it was great to see every generation represented and respectfully recalling those who went before us.
After the service finished, we made our way to the Welsh Harp, where we'd been invited by the C/O of TS Broadswords Sea Training Corps to attend their Remembrance Sunday Lunch. We did a blog featuring the activities of TS Broadsword here - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/best-in-barnet-focus-on-training-ship.html - and it was great to see Commander Beck and the crew again. I was lucky enough to find myself on a very special table with a young lady who was the newest member of the corps. Her parents were originally from Romania, settling in the UK eleven years ago, shortly before the birth of their daughter. It is a great testament to the strength of our country that we welcome people. She was called out and given a special mention during the speeches. When I see all of the fine young people attending such services, it gives me great hope for our society and our future.
Usually I have celebrated Remembrance Sunday watching my son play in goal for Watling FC youth team. This year I couldn't as I'd made the other arrangements, but I was proud to hear that both Watling and Yeading FC (their opponents) proudly respected a minute silence prior to kick off. I always enjoy rereading the blogs from previous years about remembrance Sunday that I've posted - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=remembrance+Sunday - and I hope that the readers of this blog feel the same way.
As a nation we have much to be proud of and many people, no longer around to be grateful to. There are however plenty of ex service people and families who need help. Sadly this country does not look after our ex servicemen in a manner I believe they should. For this reason I have no hesitation in asking you to donate some of your hard earned cash to the Royal British legion -
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/how-to-give?
At the service at John Keble, there was an interview during the service with a retired scnior General from the British Army. He expressed the hope that one day we won't need armed forces and we'll find better ways to sort out our differences. Sadly looking at the world today, that day seems a long way off.
One final word. On the back of the order of service at John Keble Church was an appeal for funds. The Church is a hub of the community, hosting scouts, cubs, guides etc. It also hosts a homeless shelter during Barnets cold winter months. Please consider a donation - http://www.johnkeble.org.uk/
Saturday, 9 November 2013
The Saturday list #46 - Independent Shops you should check out in Mill Hill
One of the things that the Barnet Eye feels passionately about is the state of the local economy. I was extremely pleased to note that a Cafe has opened at Mill Hill Broadway Station to quench the thirst of hard pressed commuters. I urge all commuters to try it out and use the service. I had a couple of cuppas this week.
Here is a list of a few other independent shops in Mill Hill which are well worth trying out
Mill Hill Wines - Great wine shop, expert knowledge and a good selection of beers, whiskys and other spirits as well.
Cooksleys Butchers - High quality meat, the last of the independent butchers in Mill Hill Broadway. Try their kebabs
Gerrards Butchers - Another good butcher, located on the parade of shops in Daws Lane. Also does excellent delicatessen products
Boudica Lingerie - On the Hale Lane parade of shops just before the junction with the Broadway. Does what it says on the tin.
In and Out - Small grocer shop, with excellent selection of Polish provisions.
Millets Sports - Sports equipment & trainers shop
There are also several Ladies clothes shops.
I find it sad that many outlets have become Bookies, Building Societies and Estate Agents. Over the last 35 years the nature of the Broadway has really changed. When I was at School in the late 1970's the only coffee shop was Chowens, which was more an emporium for old ladies with blue rinses to eat Cream Merangues. Now we have several decent Coffee shops, which has kept the High Street Alive. The latest fad appears to be nail shops. I can't say I personally think these are a great addition, but there is a market for them.
What I miss
A record Shop
A proper fishmonger
A greengrocer
A Toyshop
Woolworths
The Model Shop
What do you miss?
Here is a list of a few other independent shops in Mill Hill which are well worth trying out
Mill Hill Wines - Great wine shop, expert knowledge and a good selection of beers, whiskys and other spirits as well.
Cooksleys Butchers - High quality meat, the last of the independent butchers in Mill Hill Broadway. Try their kebabs
Gerrards Butchers - Another good butcher, located on the parade of shops in Daws Lane. Also does excellent delicatessen products
Boudica Lingerie - On the Hale Lane parade of shops just before the junction with the Broadway. Does what it says on the tin.
In and Out - Small grocer shop, with excellent selection of Polish provisions.
Millets Sports - Sports equipment & trainers shop
There are also several Ladies clothes shops.
I find it sad that many outlets have become Bookies, Building Societies and Estate Agents. Over the last 35 years the nature of the Broadway has really changed. When I was at School in the late 1970's the only coffee shop was Chowens, which was more an emporium for old ladies with blue rinses to eat Cream Merangues. Now we have several decent Coffee shops, which has kept the High Street Alive. The latest fad appears to be nail shops. I can't say I personally think these are a great addition, but there is a market for them.
What I miss
A record Shop
A proper fishmonger
A greengrocer
A Toyshop
Woolworths
The Model Shop
What do you miss?
Barnet Bloggers joint letter to Barnet Councillors over £16.1 million bung to Capita
Yesterday the Barnet bloggers sent a joint letter to all Barnet Councillors concerning the £16.1 million bung to Capita PLC, paid with your cash. The Barnet Eye was most disturbed to see zero coverage of this massive scandal in the printed press. I have received a plethora of private emails from "concerned councillors". Sadly the concern seems mostly for their jobs. None have actually been prepared to comment on the scandal. They simply want the Barnet Eye to stop exposing the scandal until such time as the council repsonds to the email I sent them in August.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Councillors
Throughout the history of the One Barnet outsourcing programme, statements by the leader of Barnet council, Cabinet members, Conservative councillors and the senior management team have all maintained that as a fundamental commitment to the NSCSO contract Capita would make a large ‘upfront’ capital investment.
Throughout the history of the One Barnet outsourcing programme, statements by the leader of Barnet council, Cabinet members, Conservative councillors and the senior management team have all maintained that as a fundamental commitment to the NSCSO contract Capita would make a large ‘upfront’ capital investment.
The necessity of this investment
by a private sector partner was given as the reason why the authority refused
even to consider an in-house option as an alternative to privatisation of
council services.
If an in-house option had been adopted, not only would many local jobs have been saved, all efficiencies made through better management of such functions as procurement would have been retained by the authority, as opposed to a limited amount capped in the contractual agreement with Capita. By ignoring this option, it is arguable that the statutory duty of the authority to make the best use of taxpayers' money may have been breached.
If an in-house option had been adopted, not only would many local jobs have been saved, all efficiencies made through better management of such functions as procurement would have been retained by the authority, as opposed to a limited amount capped in the contractual agreement with Capita. By ignoring this option, it is arguable that the statutory duty of the authority to make the best use of taxpayers' money may have been breached.
We have now learnt that not only
has Capita failed to make the promised capital funding but that in August, in a
complete reversal of policy, the Leader
of the Council sanctioned the payment to Capita of £16.1 million of taxpayers’
money held in the authority’s reserves, in order to cover the cost of the
capital investment.
We believe that not only have the
leadership, Conservative members and senior management team of Barnet Council
promoted the need for privatisation, and the contract with Capita, on a totally
false premise, they have continued to mislead residents by misrepresenting the
facts, and maintaining that capital investment is to be given by the company,
rather than admitting that money has been taken from the authority's reserves
and paid to Capita for this purpose.
After the Cabinet meeting of 6th December 2012 which approved the contract with Capita, Councillor Cornelius made this claim in a statement published on the BBC London news website
Council leader Richard Cornelius said the combination of a saving to the taxpayer of a million pounds a month and an £8m investment in technology by Capita made it a "very, very good deal for the Barnet taxpayer".
After the Cabinet meeting of 6th December 2012 which approved the contract with Capita, Councillor Cornelius made this claim in a statement published on the BBC London news website
Council leader Richard Cornelius said the combination of a saving to the taxpayer of a million pounds a month and an £8m investment in technology by Capita made it a "very, very good deal for the Barnet taxpayer".
This misrepresentation of the truth has continued even after the payment £16.1 million was formally authorised by the Leader of the council.
The business model approved by Cabinet on 6th December 2012 stated clearly that this investment was to come from Capita: how can it be lawful, therefore, that having approved the contract on this basis, we now find the reverse is true, and that taxpayers are paying for the investment?
If there is any financial argument for such a fundamental change, why has the authority not been open and transparent about this new agreement, and sought approval through the appropriate procedures?
The authorisation to add £16.1 million to the capital programme in order to pay for the capital investment was made on 5th August this year by Councillor Richard Cornelius, in an action defined as a 'non key' decision.
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903
According to the council's own constitution, key decisions are those that are 'significant in financial terms or in their effect on communities comprising two or more wards'.
Clearly the decision to remove £16.1 million from reserve funds in this
way most certainly is a key decision,
and departs in the most fundamental way from the business model approved in
December.
Quite incredibly, on 6th August, the day on which the contracts were signed, and the very next day after the leader signed off the £16.1 million to cover the capital investment, Barnet Council issued a press release: http://www.barnet.gov.uk/news/article/346/barnet_council_and_capita_sign_contracts_to_save_barnet_taxpayer_millions in which it is stated:
"Capita will also make an £8 million pound investment in technology to improve council back office services".
What is that statement, other than a deliberate misrepresentation of an unpalatable truth?
We note that the explanation of the NSCSO contract on the council's own website, updated after 5th August, continues to maintain falsely that an upfront investment will come from Capita: see here -
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/930354/new_support_and_customer_services_organisation_nscso/990/new_support_and_customer_services_organisation_nscso
Capita will make an upfront investment which will provide improved Information Technology and telephone support to improve council back office services.
In regard to the approval of 5th August, the constitution says:
When key decisions are to be discussed or made, notification is published at least 28 days before. If these decisions are to be discussed with council officers at a meeting of the Executive, this will generally be open for the public to attend, except where personal or confidential matters are being discussed. The Executive has to make decisions that are in line with the Council’s overall policies and budget. If it wishes to make a decision that is outside the budget or policy framework, this must be referred to the full Council to decide.
Unless the change of policy, and a radical change to the terms of the business model represented by the decision to use reserve funds for a capital investment payment to Capita has been formally agreed through the relevant constitutional procedures, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the payment may well be unlawful, and as residents, taxpayers and citizen journalists in Barnet we object in the strongest terms to what would appear to be a serious breach of the regulations that are supposed to protect our best interests, and we ask you to instigate an immediate investigation into the issues we have raised.
Quite incredibly, on 6th August, the day on which the contracts were signed, and the very next day after the leader signed off the £16.1 million to cover the capital investment, Barnet Council issued a press release: http://www.barnet.gov.uk/news/article/346/barnet_council_and_capita_sign_contracts_to_save_barnet_taxpayer_millions in which it is stated:
"Capita will also make an £8 million pound investment in technology to improve council back office services".
What is that statement, other than a deliberate misrepresentation of an unpalatable truth?
We note that the explanation of the NSCSO contract on the council's own website, updated after 5th August, continues to maintain falsely that an upfront investment will come from Capita: see here -
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/info/930354/new_support_and_customer_services_organisation_nscso/990/new_support_and_customer_services_organisation_nscso
Capita will make an upfront investment which will provide improved Information Technology and telephone support to improve council back office services.
In regard to the approval of 5th August, the constitution says:
When key decisions are to be discussed or made, notification is published at least 28 days before. If these decisions are to be discussed with council officers at a meeting of the Executive, this will generally be open for the public to attend, except where personal or confidential matters are being discussed. The Executive has to make decisions that are in line with the Council’s overall policies and budget. If it wishes to make a decision that is outside the budget or policy framework, this must be referred to the full Council to decide.
Unless the change of policy, and a radical change to the terms of the business model represented by the decision to use reserve funds for a capital investment payment to Capita has been formally agreed through the relevant constitutional procedures, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the payment may well be unlawful, and as residents, taxpayers and citizen journalists in Barnet we object in the strongest terms to what would appear to be a serious breach of the regulations that are supposed to protect our best interests, and we ask you to instigate an immediate investigation into the issues we have raised.
Derek Dishman
John Dix
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne
Friday, 8 November 2013
The £16.1 Million bung to Capita - Clarification regarding Councillor Hugh Rayner
Yesterday the Barnet Eye asked the question whether the chair of the Barnet Business management overview and Scrutiny committee, Councillor Hugh Rayner should resign following the committees inaction over the £16.1 million pound gift to Capita, passed via a DPR.
Following various exchanges of emails as to which committee should be responsible for this, please see the description of the purpose of the committee from the Council website
Full details of the committee and its membership can be found here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=119
Councillor Rayner is also a member of the
The Budget and Performance Committee scrutinises the overall performance, effectiveness and value for money of council services. This includes the council’s annual budget process, the financial management of resources, and the planning, implementation and outcomes of all corporate improvement strategies. The Committee also has responsibility for scrutinising One Barnet projects throughout the programme’s lifecycle.
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=123
Which means that Councillor Rayner is the chair of one committe which should ensure scrutiny of decisions is properly performed. He is also a member of the committee which is directly responsible for dealing with the Budget decisions regarding One Barnet. Thus far I am sorry to report that Councillor Rayner, despite these two important roles, has been singularly unable or unwilling to respond regarding what exactly either of the two committees he is involved in has done.
Now for all I know, Councillor Rayner is preparing a full response which will fully answer my concerns regarding the transfer of assets to a private company. If he does, we will publish that response. One thing which is becoming 100% clear to me, from various emails I have received is that this issue is clearly something which no Barnet Conservative Councillor is prepared to discuss. It is clear that they know something they are rather keen for the rest of us to be "protected" from.
Following various exchanges of emails as to which committee should be responsible for this, please see the description of the purpose of the committee from the Council website
The purpose of the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee is to monitor and coordinate overview and scrutiny work across the authority.
The Committee has the power to appoint Scrutiny Panels and Task & Finish Groups to look at certain issues in depth, and receive reports on the progress of these groups. The Committee can also receives petitions, and is tasked with reviewing policy framework and the development of policy which does not fall within the remit of other Overview and Scrutiny Committees.
Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committees also consider call-ins and Councillor Calls for Action.
Full details of the committee and its membership can be found here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=119
Councillor Rayner is also a member of the
Budget and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee
The council website states that the function of this commitee isThe Budget and Performance Committee scrutinises the overall performance, effectiveness and value for money of council services. This includes the council’s annual budget process, the financial management of resources, and the planning, implementation and outcomes of all corporate improvement strategies. The Committee also has responsibility for scrutinising One Barnet projects throughout the programme’s lifecycle.
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=123
Which means that Councillor Rayner is the chair of one committe which should ensure scrutiny of decisions is properly performed. He is also a member of the committee which is directly responsible for dealing with the Budget decisions regarding One Barnet. Thus far I am sorry to report that Councillor Rayner, despite these two important roles, has been singularly unable or unwilling to respond regarding what exactly either of the two committees he is involved in has done.
Now for all I know, Councillor Rayner is preparing a full response which will fully answer my concerns regarding the transfer of assets to a private company. If he does, we will publish that response. One thing which is becoming 100% clear to me, from various emails I have received is that this issue is clearly something which no Barnet Conservative Councillor is prepared to discuss. It is clear that they know something they are rather keen for the rest of us to be "protected" from.
The Friday Joke - 8/11/2013
A woman
meets a man in a bar.
They talk; they connect; they end up leaving together..
They get back to his place,
And as he shows her around his apartment.
She notices that one wall of his bedroom is Completely filled with soft, sweet, cuddly teddy bears.
There are three shelves in the bedroom,
With hundreds and hundreds of cute,
Cuddly teddy bears carefully placed
In rows, covering the entire wall!
It was obvious that he had taken
Quite some time to lovingly arrange them
And she was immediately touched
By the amount of thought he had
Put into organizing the display.
There were small bears all along
The bottom shelf,
Medium-sized bears covering the
Length of the middle shelf,
And huge, enormous bears running
All the way along the top shelf.
She found it strange for an
Obviously masculine guy
To have such a large collection of
Teddy Bears,
She is quite impressed by his
Sensitive side.
But doesn't mention this to him.
They share a bottle of wine and
Continue talking and,
After a while, she finds herself
Thinking,
'Oh my God! Maybe, this guy
Could be the one!
Maybe he could be the future
Father of my children?'
She turns to him and kisses him
Lightly on the lips
He responds warmly
They continue to kiss, the passion builds,
And he romantically lifts her in
His arms and carries her into his bedroom
Where they rip off each other's
Clothes and make hot, steamy love.
She is so overwhelmed that she
Responds with more passion,
More creativity, more heat than she
Has ever known.
After an intense, explosive night
Of raw passion with this sensitive guy,
They are lying there together in
The afterglow.
The woman rolls over, gently
Strokes his chest and asks coyly,
'Well, how was it?'
The guy gently smiles at her,
Strokes her cheek,
Looks deeply into her eyes,
And says:
'Help yourself to any prize from the middle shelf'
Thursday, 7 November 2013
Barnet Council £16.1 Million Gift to Capita - Time for Councillor Hugh Rayner to resign?
Regulare readers of the Barnet Eye will be familiar with the story we broke in August detailing how Barnet Council had given Capita a bung of £16.1 million as a sweetener to take over the running of Barnet Council. This was the value of assets owned by Barnet Taxpayers and transferred to Capita PLC, a private contractor who signed two mega contracts with Barnet Council recently. The £16.1 million was not part of the contract, it was snuck through as a DPR (ie with no democratic oversight and without a decison by the council) after the event.
When the Barnet Eye discovered what happened we emailed every Barnet Councillor to demand action. The person we expected to step in was Councillor Hugh Rayner, the Conservative chairman of the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny committee. It is his job to ensure that all financial decisions concerning business decisions at Barnet Council have proper oversight. He gets a whopping great allowance for chairing this committee. Given what had happened, Councillor Rayner should have immediately investigated the transfer with his committee. If the transfer was above board and there was some justification which the Barnet Eye was unaware of, he should have told us. We have heard nothing from Councillor Rayner and nothing from his committee which means one of three things.
a) He investigated and found a clean bill of health on the transfer, but simply couldn't be bothered to respond to our email. This is extreme bad manners, but can be recitified with an email now, which we will publish.
b) He investigated and found that the transfer did not follow rules. In this case, his committee should do its job and call the cabinet to account. A paper should be published detailing the issues and the rectifications. No such action has been taken.
c) He did nothing and ignored the concerns of the Barnet Eye,despite the huge financial implications for the council.
If options a) or b) are the case, then Councillor Rayner can rectify the matter easily, by emailing us with details. If option c) is the case, Mr Rayner has derelicted his duty and should resign, giving his allowance to someone who will do the job properly. Mr Rayner has pointedly refused to answer the question in two emails this week. He now has the opportunity to set the record straight. Over to you councillor Rayner. You believe the scrutiny committe provides robust democratic oversight. Prove it.
When the Barnet Eye discovered what happened we emailed every Barnet Councillor to demand action. The person we expected to step in was Councillor Hugh Rayner, the Conservative chairman of the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny committee. It is his job to ensure that all financial decisions concerning business decisions at Barnet Council have proper oversight. He gets a whopping great allowance for chairing this committee. Given what had happened, Councillor Rayner should have immediately investigated the transfer with his committee. If the transfer was above board and there was some justification which the Barnet Eye was unaware of, he should have told us. We have heard nothing from Councillor Rayner and nothing from his committee which means one of three things.
a) He investigated and found a clean bill of health on the transfer, but simply couldn't be bothered to respond to our email. This is extreme bad manners, but can be recitified with an email now, which we will publish.
b) He investigated and found that the transfer did not follow rules. In this case, his committee should do its job and call the cabinet to account. A paper should be published detailing the issues and the rectifications. No such action has been taken.
c) He did nothing and ignored the concerns of the Barnet Eye,despite the huge financial implications for the council.
If options a) or b) are the case, then Councillor Rayner can rectify the matter easily, by emailing us with details. If option c) is the case, Mr Rayner has derelicted his duty and should resign, giving his allowance to someone who will do the job properly. Mr Rayner has pointedly refused to answer the question in two emails this week. He now has the opportunity to set the record straight. Over to you councillor Rayner. You believe the scrutiny committe provides robust democratic oversight. Prove it.
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
Barnet Labour launch manifesto parking pledges (Press Release from Barnet Labour Party)
Barnet's Labour
councillors are launching their package of parking pledges for their local
election 2014 manifesto at 10am this Saturday 9 November on Mill Hill
Broadway.
The package of parking
pledges that Labour will implement straight away if elected next year in May
are:
·
Labour will give
you 30 minutes free parking in our town
centres.
The Barnet Tories drove people out
of the high streets with their new parking regime. We’ll help you back and
support our traders with a 30 minute free parking period.
·
Labour will bring
back cash parking.
Labour will enable all current card
only meters to take cash.
·
Labour will
introduce an Oyster-style ‘Barnet Card’ to pay for
parking.
Pay-by-phone parking doesn’t work
for everyone! We’ll develop the card service over time to offer residents
discounts and widen it’s use.
·
Labour will
consult residents and make parking enforcement fair.
Unlike the Tories, we’ll ensure that
parking arrangements work for local people.
·
Labour
will give you free parking every weekend in December.
Every year we have pressed the
Council to give residents and shops a parking amnesty over Christmas. If
elected, we’ll stop arguing about it with the Tories - we’ll just do
it.
·
Labour will also
scrap
the free
Councillors’ parking permits that the Conservatives awarded themselves.
If you
can’t park for free, no Councillor should be able to
either.
The pledges
reflect residents' views from surveys conducted by the Labour Group over the
last few weeks. On a sample of just under 1,000 surveys returned, 72% of people
raised parking, with a majority calling for a free parking period and more
options to pay including cash.
Barnet's Labour
councillors have designed their parking pledges around what residents tell them
they want to see, because Labour believe that above all elected representatives
should listen to and consult the people who elect
them.
Leader of the Labour Group, Cllr
Alison Moore said: "A Labour council will listen to local people, and on parking
we have heard what residents want loud and clear. We promise to consult
residents every year as part of the annual budget process to make sure that,
under a Labour council, parking policy in Barnet works for local people. This
pledge is just one of many we’ll be making between now and the election next
May. We’re going to make sure that, with Labour, this is a Council which works
for local residents."
Labour's
Environment & Parking Spokesperson, Cllr Alan Schneiderman said: "The
Conservatives treated residents as a cash cow, and have created a parking
nightmare for our traders and town centres. By cutting the cost of parking and
bringing back cash payments combined with fair enforcement, we will encourage
residents to use local shops and businesses.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Barnet Eye is pleased to see that the Barnet Labour Party has launched a small business and resident friendly parking policy for the 2014 Council Election. We believe this could decisively swing the election in favour of Labour, given the complete lack of trust in the Conservatives parking policies.
In the run up to the 2014 Council Elections we will feature all interesting press releases from all parties with a short commentary in this format. The Barnet Eye is not alligned to any Political Party in Barnet.
Monday, 4 November 2013
Barnet Council and the £16.1 Million "GIFT" to Capita PLC
Back in August this year, The Barnet Eye exposed a scandal at Barnet Council. Our diligent trawling through Delegated Powers Reports revealed that Barnet Council had given Capita PLC £16.1 million worth of Council assets. |We also revealed how there had been no democratic oversight. You can read the story here http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/161-million-investment-transferred-to.html
Realising that this was a major scandal, The Barnet Eye sent an open email to every Barnet Councillor. You can read the letter here http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-leader-of-barnet-council.html - We also copied the Section 151 officer at Barnet Council, Mr Andrew Travers, who happens to also be the CEO.
Remarkably, I didn't get a single response from anyone involved with running the administration. I also copied the local press into the email. There was not a dickybird from them either. One might think that no one cares about such a scandalous act? Well fortunately for the Barnet Taxpayer, quite a few people do. Behind the scenes, all manner of people have been looking at the issue. It appears that the fears of the Barnet Eye were not without basis.
We now have a legal opinion on the transfer. The key points are
It is possible that the Council has breached its own rules and possibly the Local Government Act 2000 in the way the decision was made. A key decision is one that involves a lot of money or affects more than one ward. It must be in the forward plan or covered by an urgency exception – if not it would have to go to full council .
The Council report is recorded as not being a key decision.
See here http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903 I have seen no evidence it was in the forward plan so next question was it treated as urgent? It is at least possible that the decision is ultra vires. If this is right it should be referred to the s151 officer, District Auditor and could be challenged in the courts by anybody with locus standi – probably a council tax payer.
So anyway, yet again the Barnet Eye is in a position where we have to write to the Leader of the Council, The Section 151 officer and the chair of the Audit committee. There are a lot of people looking at this now. This is one scandal that cannot be buried under the carpet.
Here is the email I have sent
--------------------------------
Regards
Realising that this was a major scandal, The Barnet Eye sent an open email to every Barnet Councillor. You can read the letter here http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-leader-of-barnet-council.html - We also copied the Section 151 officer at Barnet Council, Mr Andrew Travers, who happens to also be the CEO.
Remarkably, I didn't get a single response from anyone involved with running the administration. I also copied the local press into the email. There was not a dickybird from them either. One might think that no one cares about such a scandalous act? Well fortunately for the Barnet Taxpayer, quite a few people do. Behind the scenes, all manner of people have been looking at the issue. It appears that the fears of the Barnet Eye were not without basis.
We now have a legal opinion on the transfer. The key points are
Here are two questions which
need to be asked.
1. Is the expenditure within
the budget (capital programme) agreed by Council?
We know it isn't because it was passed in a hasty DPR
2. Is the level of expenditure
greater than 500k and is it significant, i.e. impacting on two or more wards?
If the answer is yes, then it
is a key decision.
It is clear that it is a key decision. In legal terms the expenditure could be ultra vires ( i.e. unlawful depending on exactly how it was taken) if they haven't made the
decision properly. As far as I am concerned, as a council tax payer, I intend to raise the matter again with the Section 151 officer,
internal and external audit.
See here http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903 I have seen no evidence it was in the forward plan so next question was it treated as urgent? It is at least possible that the decision is ultra vires. If this is right it should be referred to the s151 officer, District Auditor and could be challenged in the courts by anybody with locus standi – probably a council tax payer.
So anyway, yet again the Barnet Eye is in a position where we have to write to the Leader of the Council, The Section 151 officer and the chair of the Audit committee. There are a lot of people looking at this now. This is one scandal that cannot be buried under the carpet.
Here is the email I have sent
--------------------------------
Dear Mr Travers, Councillor Cornelius and
Councillor Palmer,
I am writing to you as a concerned Barnet resident
and Council taxpayer. On the 29th August 2013. am eamiling you in your role as
Section 151 officer, Leader of the Council and chair of Audit . I sent you the
email attached below. I received no satisfactory response concerning this issue.
I have taken legal opinion and it seems my fears
were not completely unfounded. As you will recall, this massive transfer was
done as a DPR without any democratic oversight. Given the sum and the effect, it
is clearly a key decision. The legal opinion I have received states the
following
"It is possible that the Council has breached its own rules and
possibly the Local Government Act 2000 in the way the decision was made. A key
decision is one that involves a lot of money or affects more than one ward. It
must be in the forward plan or covered by an urgency exception – if not it would
have to go to full council .
The Council report is recorded as not being a key decision.
See here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903
I have seen no evidence it was in the forward plan so next question was it treated as urgent?
It is at least possible that the decision is ultra vires, i.e. unlawful depending on exactly how it was taken. "
As this is an extremely serious matter I am asking for an urgent response to the following three questions
The Council report is recorded as not being a key decision.
See here
http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4903
I have seen no evidence it was in the forward plan so next question was it treated as urgent?
It is at least possible that the decision is ultra vires, i.e. unlawful depending on exactly how it was taken. "
As this is an extremely serious matter I am asking for an urgent response to the following three questions
1. Is the expenditure within
the budget (capital programme) agreed by Council?
2. Is the level of expenditure
greater than 500k and is it significant, i.e. impacting on two or more
wards?
3. Has legal opinion been
sought as to the legality of this transfer and what did that opinion state?
Barnet Council is the legal custodian of taxpayers
money. It has a duty of care to look after this money and not squander or give
it away. The Council also has a legal obligation to act legally and to be
transparent in its dealings with suppliers and taxpayers. The council studiously
ignored answering my previous email on the subject. Whether this was just a
matter of bad manners or whether there was a darker reason is not at this moment
clear. What is clear is that Barnet Council owes me an apology for not replying
and an explanation for what has been going on. If everything has been done in a
completely satisfactory manner, then there is no reason why the council cannot
show this.
For the absence of doubt, I will be posting this
open letter on the Barnet Eye blog, along with any official response.
Regards
Roger Tichborne
From: Roger TichborneCc: cllr.a.brodkin@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.campbell@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.cornelius@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.mittra@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.strongolou@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.tambourides@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.coleman@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.evangeli@barnet.gov.uk; cllr.b.gordon@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.salinger@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.schama@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.c.omacauley@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.c.rogers@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.c.salinger@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.d.seal@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.d.yawitch@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.e.greenspan@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.g.cooke@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.g.johnson@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.g.old@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.g.sargeant@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.h.rayner@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.j.hart@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.johnson@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.tambourides@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.j.tierney@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.k.mcguirk@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.l.rutter@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.m.braun@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.m.shooter@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.houston@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.r.thompstone@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.turner@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.s.khatri@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.s.rajput@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.s.sowerby@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.z.zubairi@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.ioannidis@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.finn@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.h.hart@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.w.prentice@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.harper@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.hutton@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.moore@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.schneiderman@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.a.slocombe@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.a.sodha@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.b.perry@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.b.rawlings@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.c.farrier@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.d.longstaff@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.d.thomas@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.cohen@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.j.marshall@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.j.scannell@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.m.cohen@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.m.palmer@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.p.coakleywebb@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.cornelius@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.r.rams@barnet.gov.uk ;cllr.s.palmer@barnet.gov.uk ; cllr.t.davey@barnet.gov.uk ; Travers, AndrewSent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:13 AMSubject: Open Letter to the Leader of the Council - Objection to the misuse of the DPR mechanism to approve One Barnet transferDear Councillor Cornelius,I was appalled to find a DPR signed by yourself, authorising an investment of £16.1 million with Capita, to underwrite the NSCSO project, signed on the 5th August. The text of the DPR makes it clear that this DPR was necessary as a result of the the failure of your administration to properly consider the issues associated with the One Barnet project and the work necessary to implement it. It is simply unimaginable that an organisation such as Barnet Council can forget, for a period of eight months, to properly account for £16.1 million worth of assets in a major transformation project (I refer to this DPR http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s10212/NSCSO%20Capital%20Investment.pdf ).The Delegated Power Report mechanism was introduced to ensure the smooth running of the council to implement minor, non contentious issues. It was not devised as a means for the administration to hide major cock ups or to transfer huge sums of money to private contractors. All along the official line taken by Barnet Council is that the One Barnet project has been properly scrutinised and the army of highly payed lawyers have ensured all paperwork is watertight. To find out that this supposedly professionally run project has failed to properly account for a £16.1 million transfer of assets is shocking to say the least.The question one has to ask is that if the council can overlook the need to properly account for and sign off the transfer of £16.1 million worth of assets, what else has been missed? Perhaps the most shocking revelation in this sorry piece of underhand chicanery is the revelation in the event of the failure of Capita to deliver the required services to the appropriate standard, the mitigation is for the council to carry on using the Capita service. This is made entirely clear from the risks register section. This is the text contained. As the signatory of this report, are you seriously trying to convince us that continuing to use a failed supplier is a mitigation?3.2 There is a risk that, on termination, the Council has invested in assets, particularly in respect of IT, that, given they are located in shared services locations offsite from Barnet, the Council cannot continue to use in the future. This risk is mitigated by obligations on the contractor to provide licences for the continued use of these applications following termination of the agreementI am not in the least surprised to see that such a DPR was snuck through at the height of the holiday season, when the council officers would assume no one is looking. I am however most surprised that you would participate in this ruse bysigning it.This issue clearly needs to be discussed at full council I have copied the councillors of Barnet into this correspondence in the hope that some of your colleagues are as troubled by this as I am. As I am sure you are well aware, I have had fundamental issues all along with the One Barnet process. This failure and the exposition of the risks and mitigations has simply confirmed my belief that this officer lead initiative is fundamentally undemocratic and dangerous.Please not my full objections have been voiced in this blog -http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/161-million-investment-transferred-to.htmlYours sincerelyRoger Tichborne
PS Please note that as I believe this to be a matter of public interest, I have copied Barnet CEO, Press, Barnet Bloggers and trades Unions into this correspondence. I have also published this correspondence on my blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)