Barnet council and MetPro: evidence of small victories

Just before Easter, a clutch of Barnet residents, including some of its bloggers, sent off a letter to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles.

We were renewing our call for an independent inquiry into Barnet council's dealings with the MetPro security firms. The reasons outlined, barring a few tweaks and embellishments, were those Rog T outlined in a recent blogpost.

It being Easter and likely a whole fortnight where things would move quite slowly, I expected that interest in MetPro would drop off slightly. However, that doesn't mean the issue has gone away.

Monroe Palmer, chair of the council's audit committee investigation of this issue, tells Roger the committee will meet in June. That's too late. He had hinted to Times series journalists that he would bring the investigation forward to April or May. That idea has been shelved, has it? It shouldn't be! We cannot wait till June!

The most alarming discovery of residents' and supporters' various investigations is that there are no records of any council contracts with MetPro: the council and the company merely had an "arrangement". The second most alarming discovery is that the council seems not to have monitored this "arrangement" once made. Since the council is hurtling into wholesale contracting out of services, any gaping holes in its competence in the matter of contracting need to be exposed as quickly as possible! Not in June!

I am waiting for a response from the Information Commissioner's Office about Barnet's handling of the data issue, when - only through the efforts of others - they found out that MetPro had been filming residents. I am also putting in an official complaint to the council on this matter.

With many of these measures, people tell me "don't hold your breath!", meaning nothing will happen quickly. And, even if it does, any remedy probably won't satisfy you. They could be right. The real value, however, is in propaganda. Going down the official routes yields fruit if accompanied by a publicity campaign.

That's what I and fellow bloggers and other residents intend to keep up.

To remind myself why I'm doing this, I visited the website of MetPro Emergency Response, the company that bought the assets and business of MetPro Rapid Response - you know, the company that went into voluntary liquidation on 14 March with debts of around £400,000, including £245,000 owed to HM Revenue and Customs ("the tax man").

I only had to visit the "Testimonials" page on MetPro's website to remember why it is all worth it. Whereas a few short weeks ago, Barnet council featured prominently as one of MetPro's most satisfied customers, today there is not a word about or from Barnet council. That is as it should be, but how was it possible? Only because of the campaign led by Barnet residents and bloggers. Only because we shone a light on MetPro and shamed the council into ending their relations with them. No one should ever forget that, least of all Monroe Palmer.

Barnet council meeting, 12 April - Pinkham Way Alliance vs. Cllr Gordon, Blue 9 vs. MetPro

Returned rather tired from (a couple of drinks in the pub after) the Barnet council meeting on Tuesday 12 April.

There was a large crowd of 200 or so protesters against the Pinkham Way development. Read more here on the website of the Pinkham Way Alliance.

They say:

One of the largest Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) waste processing sites in Europe is coming to North London and it's much closer than you think. The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) wants to build an industrial site in our community to process waste from seven London boroughs. They plan to do this on land that is currently serving as a mature wildlife habitat and as a green buffer from the North Circular. It will also increase traffic congestion in an already congested area and will affect the health of nearby residents.

They kept up chanting throughout much of the council meeting, outside, their voices reaching those lucky enough to get into the public gallery. The main item on Pinkham Way, however, was at the very end of the meeting so, naturally, many of the families who had come to express their concern had had to leave by then.

A question raised by the Labour group about the need for wider consultation on the issue only got the response: we don't need to do that, the community have been consulted (those in the gallery heckled that they hadn't), and it was for Haringey council to decide what happens at Pinkham Way.

Councillor Brian Gordon (Conservative) distinguished himself with the crassest remark of the evening calling the residents (from Haringey but also from Barnet) "rabble" - twice.

The main event of the evening from a Barnet blogger's point of view was Labour's attempt to move an emergency motion on the relationship between the MetPro companies and Barnet council. Of course - yes, of course - the Tories voted it down, saying the internal audit would answer any questions that needed answering.

Blue 9 security, replacing MetPro (thanks to the work of Barnet bloggers, not through any effort by the council) distinguished themselves by their politeness, low-key dress - grey suits - and prominently displayed Security Industry Authority badges. Now, that wasn't difficult, was it?

Notable absentees from the council chamber were the council leader Lynne Hillan and Mark Shooter, who challenged her for the leadership not so long ago.

You can enjoy some more pictures of the Pinkham Way and other demonstrators on my Flickr site here.

MetPro didn't have proper security licences...? We need an inquiry!

The Evening Standard is reporting today that the Security Industry Authority is looking into MetPro who it seems did not have all the licences needed for the jobs they were doing.

This makes it absolutely imperative that Barnet council comes out of its hidey hole and holds a full inquiry into its dealings with MetPro.

Join us at Hendon Town Hall tomorrow evening to lobby the council meeting, and/or email your councillor to support residents' call for an independent inquiry. Find your councillor here.

Sign the MetPro letter - hand-in tomorrow

If you would like to sign the statement calling on Barnet council to hold an independent public inquiry into the relationship with MetPro Rapid/Emergency Response, please drop me a line c/o info@barnettuc.org.uk.

We would like to hand the letter in to Lynne Hillan at the council meeting tomorrow. However, I've been informed that there is no facility for us to present the letter during the meeting itself. As we know, when it comes to bossing residents around, this administration likes to do everything by the book.

(By the way, Barnet CPZ Action, who are opposing Barnet council's hike in CPZ charges, are in the High Court on the Strand today at 3pm if anyone is in the area and feels like lending them support!)

We won't get to do much more, I suspect, than sliding the letter under the door of the Conservative group office in the town hall. But we can at least do that! I understand the Labour group are going to raise the issue during the council meeting itself...

A statement elicited by the Barnet Press in their latest MetPro article is alarming:

Barnet Police Partnership Superintendent Neil Seabridge added: “I can state categorically that police did not authorise any intrusive surveillance at the council meeting.

“Nor did we tell anyone else they could use covert or intrusive surveillance, which is a highly regulated area which requires specific written authority by a police superintendent or above when police initiate it for very specific reasons linked to investigation or prevention of crime.

“Such a meeting at the town hall would not fall under any of these categories.”

Barnet council made a lot of their "safeguarding" duty in justifying their cuts package, implying that residents who would not swallow closure of museums, etc, were putting vulnerable residents using social services at risk.

In their management of the contract with MetPro, Barnet council has failed to "safeguard" residents from possible illegal filming: if that isn't an extaordinary situation I don't know what is! The promised "internal audit" at an unspecified date is not enough. We'll be at Hendon Town Hall tomorrow from 6.15pm (meeting starts at 7pm) to make that clear.

MetPro and Barnet council: internal audit is not enough

Barnet council is going to carry out an audit of its relationship with MetPro, according to this report in the Times series.

At least Nick Walkley, the chief exec, has noticed there is an issue to address! I'm wondering, though, whether he'd have bothered at all if this story hadn't been starting to get into the London/national papers - p22 of the Evening Standard today, with probably more on the way.

But I don't think an internal audit will do enough. The council's statement said:

“Once the council was aware MetPro had gone into liquidation it terminated its contract, as is normal practice.

“Given the circumstances of the termination, the Chief Executive Nick Walkley has asked for a full audit of the arrangements surrounding this contract with MetPro.

“This will also make sure that any lessons learned will be passed on to the rest of the organisation.

"Any such report would go before the audit committee as part of its normal activity."

What is the remit of the investigation? Will it take in all the issues raised by the Barnet bloggers? It needs to.

Frankly, there's a wider issue here of Barnet council's general competence. I think the fact that the council did not even know that MetPro were filming reveals incompetence. The council is about to contract with many more companies to deliver council services. This MetPro affair shines a harsh light on their lack of ability to do that well.

Just as with the MetPro case, residents will be the ones to suffer when these arrangements foul up.

I for one am not content with the internal audit as a means of getting to the bottom of this affair and "learning lessons". I will continue to call for an independent public inquiry. The biggest lesson it seems Barnet council needs to learn is humility: open the windows! Let the residents know what goes on in your world! Only a public inquiry can do that satisfactorily.

Barnet jumps the shark

If the MetPro/Barnet council saga were a soap opera, last night it jumped the shark.

For a while Barnet council denied that MetPro had ever taken film of residents at council meetings. This flew in the face of several statements by Mr Sharkey, one of the company's directors. Then on Tuesday evening the Times series posted this story: Barnet Council says secret footage taken by MetPro security firm of residents has been destroyed:

A statement from the council said: “At no point has the council ever authorised security staff carrying lapel cameras.

“As soon as we realised MetPro had filmed on our premises without authorisation we asked them to send in their footage and destroyed it.”

Do I feel reassured? Does any Barnet resident?

MetPro Rapid Response have had a contract with the council since 2006. When did they start filming? Did Barnet never realise? Don't they have a duty to ensure contractors comply with legislation - has MetPro breached data protection legislation? Does Barnet even know?

Barnet's "reassurance" is so half-baked it only serves to alarm me more. I imagine the conversation with the journalist going something like this:

Hello, hello, is that the Times series. Uh, yeah, I thought I'd just give you a quick bell. You know that filming business? Yeah, well, it turns out the bloggers were right after all, but there's no need to worry because MetPro stuck all the film/audio/photographs in a brown envelope and sent it over to NLBP (on a motorbike, perhaps). Yeah, we put it in the shredder... (Places hand over receiver but muffled voice is still audible:) Joe, what did you do with that load of film that arrived earlier? What do you mean you can't find it... you'd better bloody find it, and quick... etc.

Oh, my goodness!

Can I just point out that Barnet council should be thanking Barnet's bloggers for finding out for them:
(1) that MetPro has been filming residents without their or, apparently, the council's knowledge;
(2) MetPro was going to go bust (if Barnet council knew this before the Barnet bloggers did I will eat a pair of Brian Coleman's underpants).

I would strongly urge any Barnet resident who would like to sign the call for an inquiry into the relationship between MetPro and Barnet council to email me c/o info@barnettuc.org.uk.

Barnet's dilemma: move to restore trust or embark on a game of brinkmanship?

Well, I know which I would choose, if I were Barnet council's ruling group: move to restore trust. I am talking, of course, about the council's relationship with MetPro Rapid Response (MRR) and MetPro Emergency Response (MER) which, while not the same company, merely a successor company, does, to my untrained eye, bear many of the features of being a phoenix company.

I realise I might be courting a libel writ, but, hey, I'm an inveterate thrill-seeker! Not.

I'm afraid raising the question of Barnet council's relationship with MetPro feels risky. But it needs talking about! I am a lowly Barnet resident, let me remind you and, in my view, residents who want to get to the bottom of this affair shouldn't be put in the position of feeling that we are embarking on dangerous ground. Yet, that is how it feels.

A number of residents have submitted FOI requests to Barnet council about Barnet and MetPro: so far, no answers and, for some concerned, the deadline by which Barnet should have replied has already passed.

Almost all of Barnet's regular bloggers, me included, today published a statement calling for a public inquiry into Barnet council's relationship with MetPro.

What would be the ambit of such an inquiry? Well, that would be up to the chair, but I hope it would be wide. We are getting conflicting versions of events from different actors in the story - we need to know who is right; and there are some other plain vexing questions which I would want to have answers to if my confidence in the council were to be restored.

My proposals for inquiry include:

- what was the chain of command on the night of 1 March at the council meeting in Hendon Town Hall? We know that the police had a view on how things should proceed, council staff had a view, councillors and senior officers had a view, and MetPro had a view. But were they all on the same page? Who, for example, should take responsibility for the decision to bar entry to the Town Hall to a group of distinctly unrowdy residents (see film on Rog T's blog).

Residents need to know, in order to ensure that our rights of access to council meetings are clearer in future.

- were residents filmed at the meeting? Have residents been routinely filmed at meetings for much of the time that MetPro have had responsibility for security at council meetings? If they have, how far back does that go? 2006, when MRR first got the contract?

If residents were filmed, did Barnet council know about it and did they order it? There are conflicting statements on this from Mr Sharkey, a director of MRR, and the council.

Residents need to know. They need to know whether MetPro or a successor company, or the liquidator dealing with MRR (which has gone bust, with debts of over £400,000 including £245,000 owed to HM Revenue & Customs) has film of them, and what they have done with it.

A number of residents are now taking this matter up with the Information Commissioner.

- has Barnet adequately handled its relationship with this contractor? Residents need to know. It fills me with horror that Barnet bloggers seem to have had wind that MRR was going bust before Barnet council did.

Barnet council is planning to outsource almost the entire council services to private companies. Many commentators have given warnings in the run-up to the implementation of the One Barnet plan (now in full swing) about the council's lack of capacity to handle mass outsourcing.

On the evidence so far, including this affair and the recent discovery of legionella bacteria at Fremantle care homes, residents have a great deal to fear in the Brave New Outsourced World of One Barnet.

- how did MetPro get the contract at Barnet? Forgive me if I am speaking out of turn, but when we already see a catalogue of doubt and confusion surrounding Barnet council's relationship with MetPro, I for one need my mind putting at rest about how MetPro got contracts with Barnet council in the first place.

If there is no wrongdoing, let's have it all out in the open. Residents need to know.

Barnet council needs to restore residents' trust. It shouldn't embark on a game of brinkmanship but open the windows on this whole affair!

To all councillors who might read this, particularly from Barnet Tory group, I would like to suggest that the biggest danger for you in this affair is not that Barnet bloggers might appear to be scoring points off Barnet council; the biggest danger here is losing your reputation for good with Barnet residents.

Call for a public inquiry into the relationship between MetPro and Barnet Council

A number of Barnet blogs are carrying this statement today. We are looking for more signatories, with a view to presenting the statement at the Barnet council meeting on Tuesday 12 April (7pm, Hendon Town Hall). To add your signature please email me at vickimorris@btinternet.com.

Call for a public inquiry into the relationship between MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response and Barnet Council

Barnet Council has been engaging private security firms MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response to control residents’ access to council meetings, in particular the council meeting on 1 March 2011. One of the company directors claims the company has also monitored blogs by Barnet residents, and filmed Barnet residents at Council meetings.

Despite holding contracts worth several hundred thousand pounds with Barnet Council, MetPro Rapid Response collapsed recently owing around £400,000, including £245,000 to HM Revenue & Customs. The firm is now in the hands of liquidators; however, MetPro Emergency Response, a company recently set up by the same company directors associated with MetPro Rapid Response, continued for a while to be employed by Barnet after the collapse of MetPro Rapid Response.

As well as providing security for Council meetings, these firms provided security at several council locations, including some housing vulnerable people.

At the meeting on 1 March, it appears that MetPro security staff did not wear visible identification, breaching Security Industry Authority (SIA) regulations, whilst working for Barnet.

Statements made by directors of the company regarding the scope of their work for Barnet have been contradicted by executive officers of Barnet Council.

The full facts regarding Barnet Council’s contract/s with MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response must be revealed to the public. We need to know about the use of data collected by the company (with full consideration for data protection and human rights implications). We need Barnet Council to reveal the extent of the MetPro companies’ activities on behalf of the Council. Residents and Council staff have a right to know what activities their Council undertake. They have a right to expect the Council only to engage firms with a proven track record for such activities and to monitor such, ensuring, for example, that they comply with legislation, eg, SIA regulations.

The only way that trust can be restored in Barnet Council, following the MetPro debacle, is to hold a full public inquiry. We the undersigned call on Nick Walkley, CEO of Barnet Council, and Lynne Hillan, Council Leader, to immediately engage an independent investigator, enjoying the confidence of Barnet residents, to look into the relationship between MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response and Barnet Council. We demand to know what Barnet Council asked MetPro Rapid Response/MetPro Emergency Response to do and what Barnet Council has done with any information about residents it has had access to as a result of MetPro’s work.

Signed:

Alexander Clayman (N12)
Derek Dishman (EN5)
Adam Langleben (HA8)
Vicki Morris (NW9)
Theresa Musgrove (N3)
Maria Nash (EN4)
Julian Silverman (N12)
Roger Tichborne (NW7)
Adele Winston (EN5)