Procedure Motion

 

Councillor Kevin Brady moved and CouncillorEhtasham Haque, seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 9.3, the Members Questions conclude and the remaining motions, 12.1-12.3 be put to a vote without discussion due to lack of time”. The procedural motion was agreed.[MM1] 

 

 

12.1   Motion regarding Care Full Pay

 

Councillor Rachel Blake moved and Councillor Val Whitehead seconded the motion as printed in the agenda

 

The motion was agreed

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes

 

This council notes:

1.          The GMB union has launched its Care Full Pay campaign calling for full occupational sick pay for residential social care staff with the aim of persuading care providers and Government that full sick pay is one of the most effective forms of infection prevention in care homes.  The main objectives being

a.    Full occupational sick pay for those working in residential social care. 

b.    Covid-19 full sick pay as a step to full sick pay. 

c.     Promote full sick pay as an infection control measure

2.          The UK has one of the lowest levels of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) in Europe. Over time, the value of the payment has been eroded, and it now equates to around a fifth of median earnings. The April 2020 SSP rate is £95.85 per week.

3.          According to the 2020 Vivaldi study, 77 per cent of care home workers received SSP-only (and a further 7 per cent did not receive any sick may coverage).

4.          The Government set up the Adult Social Care Infection Control Fund with the primary purpose of this fund to support adult social care providers to reduce the rate of COVID-19 transmission in and between care and support wider workforce resilience.

5.          The Adult Social Care Infection Control Fund was initially set up with £600 million in funding and was paid out in two tranches. The first has been paid to local authorities on 22 May 2020. The second tranche paid in July 2020.

6.          The Government have now agreed to extend the Adult Social Care Infection Control Fund for social care until March 2021, with an additional £546 million for infection control in care in September 2020.

7.          Dealing with our post Covid-19 future we will need more rigid infection control measures in our care system.

8.          That social care workers provide a vital service in Tower Hamlets and across the country, and are greatly valued.

This council understands that:

1.          A strong body of emerging evidence links inadequate sickness pay to higher infection rates, and a reluctance to return to work including:

a.    The initial findings of the Vivaldi study include tentative evidence that ‘in care homes where staff receive sick pay, there are lower levels of infection in residents.

b.    A recent survey of furloughed and non-furloughed workers found that ‘workers without employer-provided sick pay have a significantly lower willingness to pay to return to work,’ and also that ‘workers without additional sick pay are significantly more likely to continue to work even with mild coronavirus symptoms.’

c.     In Spain, a reduction in the generosity of sick pay arrangements was associated with ‘huge increases in both the proportion of relapses and working accidents rates.’

2.             A GMB survey of nearly 1000 social care workers found that:

a.    77 per cent of care workers said they would be inclined to return to work before they were ready if they were on SSP.

b.    80 per cent of respondents said they would be forced to borrow off family or friends to make ends meet if they were put on SSP.

 

 

This council resolves to:

 

1.          Express its public support for GMB union’s Care Full Pay campaign.

2.          To call on the government to fund local authorities sufficiently so that they can commission care home providers and domiciliary care agencies to pay full occupational sick pay to the social care workforce

3.          To recommend to providers receiving allocated funds from the Adult Social Care Infection Control Fund to pay full occupational sick pay as a priority, noting that guidance does give other uses for the ICF that minimise staff movement and reduce the risk or transmission.

4.          To report how the Adult Social Care Infection Control Fund granted to the council in May and July 2020 was spent by care providers, to inform future ICF. 

5.          To call on the government to ensure guidance for all future Adult Social Care Infection Control Fund strongly stipulate full sick pay as a priority.

 

12.2       Motion regarding Martyn’s Law and the Protection of our residents and visitors’

 

Councillor Peter Golds moved and Councillor Andrew Wood seconded the motion as printed in the agenda

 

Councillor Sirajul Islam moved and Mayor John Biggs seconded the following amendment to the motion, as set out in the supplementary agenda:

 

This council notes:

 

That there have been a number of attacks in London identified as terrorism, these have involved the lethal use of knives and the use of vehicles to knock down, kill and maim vulnerable pedestrians in well visited areas of the city and in a location in the vicinity of  a Mosque. Tower Hamlets is a borough with many tourist attractions and places of worship, many located on streets which have large numbers of pedestrians in the past and are likely to have again once travel resumes.

A feature of concern has been crowded places which includes shopping centres, sports stadia, bars, pubs and clubs and residential areas which are easily accessible to the public and attractive to terrorists. Concerns have grown with regard to public security inside venues where people congregate as well as measures to protect our streets. The Shoreditch Triangle which includes, Bishopsgate, Spitalfields and parts of Bethnal Green is already a visitor hotspot with a large night-time economy and is intersected by busy roads. We now also have the prospect of a major Embassy moving to Tower Hamlets.

Since 2018, the local authority has employed a Protective Security Manager – one of few councils to do so – to develop our protective security response and work closely with the police and other partners on mitigating identified areas of risk. The Protective Security Manager has a close working relationship with the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Security Advisors and is a standing member of the Metropolitan Police monthly Security Review Meeting. The CONTEST Board oversees the protective security work for the local authority.

The Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Security Advisors have their own ‘priority location assessments’ which is part of their normal business and which the local authority may not necessarily be part of. The CTSA’s also provide routine protective security advice to businesses as part of their normal business.

The Council also invests significantly in public space CCTV, which plays an important role in security and policing, and the Council is also upgrading the existing infrastructure through a £3m capital investment programme.

The government on the 26^th February 2021 set out its proposals on a new Protect Duty; a legal requirement for public places to ensure preparedness for and protection from terrorist attacks. It would require those in scope to consider terrorist threats, and consider and implement appropriate and proportionate protective security and organisational preparedness measures.

The Home Office’s proposed Protect Duty, which is currently out for consultation, delivers on a manifesto commitment to improve the safety and security of public venues and spaces, drawing on lessons learned from previous terrorist incidents. Tower Hamlets Council will be responding to the consultation.

These changes follow a campaign run by the mother of Martyn Hett who was among 22 people killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. The changes will be to consider airport-style security checks to be mandatory at major sporting and entertainment venues. No such law currently exists so security remains the decision of individual operators.

That the proposed new law would require venue operators to consider the risk of a terrorist attack and take "proportionate and reasonable measures to prepare for and protect the public from such an attack", according to the Home Office. This could include increased physical security, training, incident response plans and exercises for staff on what to do during an attack

There is an existing Capital Project for the development of protective security measures around identified key locations on the borough including the East London Mosque, Brick Lane and Columbia Road Market.  All work in these locations goes through a rigorous technical assessment process with relevant experts in the protective security field including our Protective Security Manager. In addition the Liveable Streets project is improving local infrastructure at Brick Lane, Columbia Road and Whitechapel to reduce vehicle access in these areas which complements the protective security work.  Both the CTSA’s and the Protective Security Manager are providing advice and support to Liveable Streets and Planning as appropriate.

All faith centres on the borough have previously been invited to bid for additional funding from the Home Office ‘Places of Worship’ fund for any specific protective security work they wished to undertake, and the Mayor has also lobbied the Home Office to provide more funding. During 2019, 13 locations applied, with 4 locations accepting funding. Other institutions were either not successful or withdrew their applications for various reasons. In 2020 only one institution applied and were successful.

That  the City of London continues to invest in security measures which include manned checkpoints, rising street bollards, restricted roads and crash- proof barricades. These precautions follow a warning by MI5 that the “eastern cluster” of towers planned around Bishopsgate is “highly sensitive to the threat of a hostile, vehicle-borne” attack and will replace the previous ring of steel installed to ward of IRA attacks.

That in addition the City of London is seeking S106 funds from developers in order to help fund this work.

That within Tower Hamlets only the Canary Wharf estate and the Tower of London has a similar level of physical protection.

That elsewhere in London concrete or other barriers have been erected to protect pedestrians from vehicle attacks.

 

The Council further notes;

 

That in February 1996 the IRA bombed Marsh Wall which killed two and injured and maimed many more, some who died of their wounds years later. This location was deliberately chosen as a less defended target then Canary Wharf estate to the immediate north but one with the same level of publicity value.

That like the City of London Tower Hamlets has emerging clusters of tall towers in Aldgate, Blackwall, Marsh Wall and the areas to the north of Canary Wharf.

The Chinese Embassy planning application.

That some areas containing high value targets have no public CCTV cameras.

This Council believes that;

The borough needs to continue to review our security measures and have appropriate security measures in place to protect and deter potential attacks. 

The Council resolves calls on the Mayor to;  

Forward a copy of this motion to the Protective Security Manager and the BCU Commander to ensure that these matters are raised with the relevant security professionals and to ensure thatInitiate a full security and safety is continually reviewed of the Borough which will be submitted to Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny and the full council for consideration and final recommendations, and;  

1.    Continue to cConsult with the Security Services on the potential threats to Tower Hamlets given its strategic location and national assets

2.     Consider adding toExplore the role of future S106 agreements additional funding for additional security measures over and above those funded through CIL

3.     Note the ongoing work of the Protective Security Manager and others in Identifying in advance likely targets and considering what steps would be required to mitigate the impact of any future attack using vehicles or other methods as the new Protect Duty requires us to do.

4.    Publicise such preparation where appropriate, in order to reassure    residents and deter potential attackers

 5.     Implement existing capital projects for the development of protective security measures including areas security measures in the areas adjoining Canary Wharf and other possible targets such as the Whitechapel Road, Brick Lane, Columbia Road Flower Market and mosques including the East London Mosque.

The motion as amended was agreed

 

RESOLVED:

 

That there have been a number of attacks in London identified as terrorism, these have involved the lethal use of knives and the use of vehicles to knock down, kill and maim vulnerable pedestrians in well visited areas of the city and in a location in the vicinity of  a Mosque. Tower Hamlets is a borough with many tourist attractions and places of worship, many located on streets which have large numbers of pedestrians in the past and are likely to have again once travel resumes.

A feature of concern has been crowded places which includes shopping centres, sports stadia, bars, pubs and clubs and residential areas which are easily accessible to the public and attractive to terrorists. Concerns have grown with regard to public security inside venues where people congregate as well as measures to protect our streets. The Shoreditch Triangle which includes, Bishopsgate, Spitalfields and parts of Bethnal Green is already a visitor hotspot with a large night-time economy and is intersected by busy roads. We now also have the prospect of a major Embassy moving to Tower Hamlets.

Since 2018, the local authority has employed a Protective Security Manager – one of few councils to do so – to develop our protective security response and work closely with the police and other partners on mitigating identified areas of risk. The Protective Security Manager has a close working relationship with the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Security Advisors and is a standing member of the Metropolitan Police monthly Security Review Meeting. The CONTEST Board oversees the protective security work for the local authority.

The Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Security Advisors have their own ‘priority location assessments’ which is part of their normal business and which the local authority may not necessarily be part of. The CTSA’s also provide routine protective security advice to businesses as part of their normal business.

The Council also invests significantly in public space CCTV, which plays an important role in security and policing, and the Council is also upgrading the existing infrastructure through a £3m capital investment programme.

The government on the 26^th February 2021 set out its proposals on a new Protect Duty; a legal requirement for public places to ensure preparedness for and protection from terrorist attacks. It would require those in scope to consider terrorist threats, and consider and implement appropriate and proportionate protective security and organisational preparedness measures.

The Home Office’s proposed Protect Duty, which is currently out for consultation, delivers on a manifesto commitment to improve the safety and security of public venues and spaces, drawing on lessons learned from previous terrorist incidents. Tower Hamlets Council will be responding to the consultation.

These changes follow a campaign run by the mother of Martyn Hett who was among 22 people killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. The changes will be to consider airport-style security checks to be mandatory at major sporting and entertainment venues. No such law currently exists so security remains the decision of individual operators.

That the proposed new law would require venue operators to consider the risk of a terrorist attack and take "proportionate and reasonable measures to prepare for and protect the public from such an attack", according to the Home Office. This could include increased physical security, training, incident response plans and exercises for staff on what to do during an attack

There is an existing Capital Project for the development of protective security measures around identified key locations on the borough including the East London Mosque, Brick Lane and Columbia Road Market.  All work in these locations goes through a rigorous technical assessment process with relevant experts in the protective security field including our Protective Security Manager. In addition the Liveable Streets project is improving local infrastructure at Brick Lane, Columbia Road and Whitechapel to reduce vehicle access in these areas which complements the protective security work.  Both the CTSA’s and the Protective Security Manager are providing advice and support to Liveable Streets and Planning as appropriate.

All faith centres on the borough have previously been invited to bid for additional funding from the Home Office ‘Places of Worship’ fund for any specific protective security work they wished to undertake, and the Mayor has also lobbied the Home Office to provide more funding. During 2019, 13 locations applied, with 4 locations accepting funding. Other institutions were either not successful or withdrew their applications for various reasons. In 2020 only one institution applied and were successful.

That  the City of London continues to invest in security measures which include manned checkpoints, rising street bollards, restricted roads and crash- proof barricades. These precautions follow a warning by MI5 that the “eastern cluster” of towers planned around Bishopsgate is “highly sensitive to the threat of a hostile, vehicle-borne” attack and will replace the previous ring of steel installed to ward of IRA attacks.

That in addition the City of London is seeking S106 funds from developers in order to help fund this work.

That within Tower Hamlets only the Canary Wharf estate and the Tower of London has a similar level of physical protection.

That elsewhere in London concrete or other barriers have been erected to protect pedestrians from vehicle attacks.

The Council further notes;

 

That in February 1996 the IRA bombed Marsh Wall which killed two and injured and maimed many more, some who died of their wounds years later. This location was deliberately chosen as a less defended target then Canary Wharf estate to the immediate north but one with the same level of publicity value.

That like the City of London Tower Hamlets has emerging clusters of tall towers in Aldgate, Blackwall, Marsh Wall and the areas to the north of Canary Wharf.

The Chinese Embassy planning application.

That some areas containing high value targets have no public CCTV cameras.

This Council believes that;

The borough needs to continue to review our security measures and have appropriate security measures in place to protect and deter potential attacks. 

The Council resolves to;  

Forward a copy of this motion to the Protective Security Manager and the BCU Commander to ensure that these matters are raised with the relevant security professionals and to ensure that security and safety is continually reviewed and;  

1.     Continue to consult with the Security Services on the potential threats to Tower Hamlets given its strategic location and national assets

 

2.    Explore the role of future S106 agreements additional funding for additional security measures over and above those funded through CIL

 

3.     Note the ongoing work of the Protective Security Manager and others in Identifying in advance likely targets and considering what steps would be required to mitigate the impact of any future attack using vehicles or other methods as the new Protect Duty requires us to do.

 

4.    Publicise such preparation where appropriate, in order to reassure residents and deter potential attackers

 

5.    Implement existing capital projects for the development of protective security measures including areas such as the Whitechapel Road, Brick Lane, Columbia Road Flower Market and mosques including the East London Mosque.

 

12.3       Motion regarding the proposed new Chinese Embassy in Tower Hamlets and a proposal to investigate naming of roads or new buildings – Tiananmen Square, Uyghur Court, Hong Kong Road and Tibet Hill and establish that any collaboration between the Chinese Embassy and local schools reflects the borough’s heritage of standing up for each other.

 

Councillor Rabina Khan moved the motion as printed in the agenda subject to the addition of ‘Tibet Hill’ as a potential road name choice.

 

Councillor Asma Islam moved and Councillor Mayor John Biggs seconded the following amendment to the motion, as set out in the supplementary agenda.

 

Changes underlined:

 

This Council notes:

 

1.          The purchase of the Royal Mint site in Tower Hamlets for the new People’s Republic of China London embassy building.

2.          The number of residents living in Tower Hamlets from the People’s Republic of China including Hong Kong residents. In addition, the number of businesses from there that are active and investing in Tower Hamlets. There is also a Tibetan community in the borough and Tibet has also been subjected to human rights’ violations by the CCP.

3.          The long history dating back to before the 1880’s of the Chinese community in Tower Hamlets and that many people from the region are now citizens of the United Kingdom.

4.          The historic ties between China, Hong Kong and Tower Hamlets due to the trade between these two countries, whether tea shipped into the docks or from the trading desks of the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (now HSBC) whose global headquarters are in Tower Hamlets.

5.          Discussions on the potential to raise the Tibetan Flag and rename roads near the Royal Mint site as Tiananmen Square, Uyghur Court and Hong Kong Road.’

6.          We are very proud of the fact that Tower Hamlets is such an open and tolerant borough where we truly value our diversity and understand the strength that it brings, and where we also understand and appreciate the need to be good partners and to foster good relationships.

7.          We remain deeply concerned about China’s human rights’ record on a number of issues, in particular the appalling treatment of the largely Muslim Uyghurs, and the situations in Hong Kong and Tibet.

8.          The BBC coverage of the allegations of systematic rape of Uyghur women in China. 

9.          That the Chinese Embassy in the UK has written to a number of local schools as part of its consultation to explore opportunities for future collaboration.

 

This Council further notes:

 

1.          That Mayor Biggs wrote to the Chinese Ambassador on behalf of the Council to express deep concerns about China’s human rights record.

2.          Cllr Peter Golds has written to English Heritage regarding the heritage of the Royal Mint Street site; the plague pits at the Royal Mint Street site (New Chinese Embassy plans plagued by Black Death burial pits (https://bit.ly/3r9nB3h).

3.          That the Tibetan Community in Tower Hamlets wrote to the Mayor, Cllrs Khan, Wood and Golds requesting to raise the Tibetan Flag on 10^th March 2021.

4.          10^th March is Tibet’s National Uprising Day, and the Tibetan flag is currently raised annually by Waltham Forest, Northampton, Woolwich and others.

5.          Cllrs Khan, Wood and Golds responded that they welcomed raising the Tibetan Flag on 10^th March 2021.

6.          Mayor Biggs met with a representative of the Chinese Embassy last year to convey the council’s concerns about China’s actions and passed the request to raise the Tibetan flag to the Council’s Chief Executive who has responsibility for such matters.

7.          The Council’s Chief Executive rejected the call for the Tibetan flag to be raised, citing protocols, even though other councils are raising the flag, as mentioned above.

 

This Council Resolves:

 

1.          That Tower Hamlets Council investigates whether roads or possibly new buildings near the location of the proposed Chinese Embassy could be renamed appropriately as acts of solidarity with historic symbols or place names of Chinese significance; for example: Tiananmen Square, Uyghur Court, Hong Kong Road and/or “Xiaobo Road" (in memory of Xiaobo Liu) – noting also the Council’s review of the borough’s public realm which included a resident consultation to identify monuments, plaques, buildings, roads which celebrated legacies which are not in keeping with the borough’s values of diversity – and to investigate what other actions the council could take to show solidarity.

2.          That there is no financial cost associated with naming roads and buildings to residents, businesses and schools or any other stakeholder. 

3.          Welcomes the relocation of the Chinese Embassy and its staff moving to Tower Hamlets. But that as new neighbours and friends we must continue to make clear where our own standards and principles apply, and we will not refrain from expressing the views of the Council, on behalf of our community, or asserting our support for the freedom and diversity of our borough.

4.          That we in Tower Hamlets welcome residents of Hong Kong who wish to take advantage of their now increased ability to move to the United Kingdom (even if more could be done). The Borough has a long and proud history of being the first home in the UK for many people fleeing persecution in their original countries. And that those earlier arrivals are now British citizens.

5.          To establish what kind of collaboration the Chinese Embassy in the UK is seeking with local schools and whether it will reflect the Borough’s Strategic Plan, which states clearly: “We have a proud history of standing up for each other as one community and celebrating our differences.” https://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=130890

 

Councillor Rabina Khan indicated that she accepted the amendment subject to the inclusion of the additional road name ‘Tibet Hill’ she had set out‘ under the ‘Council resolves, point 1.

 

The motion as amended was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes:

 

1.          The purchase of the Royal Mint site in Tower Hamlets for the new People’s Republic of China London embassy building.

2.          The number of residents living in Tower Hamlets from the People’s Republic of China including Hong Kong residents. In addition, the number of businesses from there that are active and investing in Tower Hamlets. There is also a Tibetan community in the borough and Tibet has also been subjected to human rights’ violations by the CCP.

3.          The long history dating back to before the 1880’s of the Chinese community in Tower Hamlets and that many people from the region are now citizens of the United Kingdom.

4.          The historic ties between China, Hong Kong and Tower Hamlets due to the trade between these two countries, whether tea shipped into the docks or from the trading desks of the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (now HSBC) whose global headquarters are in Tower Hamlets.

5.          Discussions on the potential to raise the Tibetan Flag and rename roads near the Royal Mint site as Tiananmen Square, Uyghur Court and Hong Kong Road.’

6.          We are very proud of the fact that Tower Hamlets is such an open and tolerant borough where we truly value our diversity and understand the strength that it brings, and where we also understand and appreciate the need to be good partners and to foster good relationships.

7.          We remain deeply concerned about China’s human rights’ record on a number of issues, in particular the appalling treatment of the largely Muslim Uyghurs, and the situations in Hong Kong and Tibet.

8.          The BBC coverage of the allegations of systematic rape of Uyghur women in China. 

9.          That the Chinese Embassy in the UK has written to a number of local schools as part of its consultation to explore opportunities for future collaboration.

 

This Council further notes:

 

1.          That Mayor Biggs wrote to the Chinese Ambassador on behalf of the Council to express deep concerns about China’s human rights record.

2.          Cllr Peter Golds has written to English Heritage regarding the heritage of the Royal Mint Street site; the plague pits at the Royal Mint Street site (New Chinese Embassy plans plagued by Black Death burial pits (https://bit.ly/3r9nB3h).

3.          That the Tibetan Community in Tower Hamlets wrote to the Mayor, Cllrs Khan, Wood and Golds requesting to raise the Tibetan Flag on 10^th March 2021.

4.          10^th March is Tibet’s National Uprising Day, and the Tibetan flag is currently raised annually by Waltham Forest, Northampton, Woolwich and others.

5.          Cllrs Khan, Wood and Golds responded that they welcomed raising the Tibetan Flag on 10^th March 2021.

6.          Mayor Biggs met with a representative of the Chinese Embassy last year to convey the council’s concerns about China’s actions and passed the request to raise the Tibetan flag to the Council’s Chief Executive who has responsibility for such matters.

7.          The Council’s Chief Executive rejected the call for the Tibetan flag to be raised, citing protocols, even though other councils are raising the flag, as mentioned above.

 

This Council Resolves:

 

1.          That Tower Hamlets Council investigates whether roads or possibly new buildings near the location of the proposed Chinese Embassy could be renamed appropriately as acts of solidarity with historic symbols or place names of Chinese significance; for example: Tiananmen Square, Tibet Hill’, Uyghur Court, Hong Kong Road and/or “Xiaobo Road" (in memory of Xiaobo Liu) – noting also the Council’s review of the borough’s public realm which included a resident consultation to identify monuments, plaques, buildings, roads which celebrated legacies which are not in keeping with the borough’s values of diversity – and to investigate what other actions the council could take to show solidarity.

2.          That there is no financial cost associated with naming roads and buildings to residents, businesses and schools or any other stakeholder. 

3.          Welcomes the relocation of the Chinese Embassy and its staff moving to Tower Hamlets. But that as new neighbours and friends we must continue to make clear where our own standards and principles apply, and we will not refrain from expressing the views of the Council, on behalf of our community, or asserting our support for the freedom and diversity of our borough.

4.          That we in Tower Hamlets welcome residents of Hong Kong who wish to take advantage of their now increased ability to move to the United Kingdom (even if more could be done). The Borough has a long and proud history of being the first home in the UK for many people fleeing persecution in their original countries. And that those earlier arrivals are now British citizens.

5.          To establish what kind of collaboration the Chinese Embassy in the UK is seeking with local schools and whether it will reflect the Borough’s Strategic Plan, which states clearly: “We have a proud history of standing up for each other as one community and celebrating our differences.” https://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=130890