Agenda item
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The questions which have been received from members of the public to be put at this meeting are set out in the attached report.
A maximum period of 20 minutes is allocated to this agenda item.
Decision:
6.1 Question from Miss Sultana Begum re: the Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson’s recent rises in London Transport Fares
6.2 Question from Mr Len Aldis re: the sponsorship of the Olympic Games by Dow Chemical
6.3 Question from Ms Catherine Tuitt re: the Stephen Lawrence case convictions and monitoring and eradicating racial and hate crime
6.4 Question from Ms Syeda Nasima re: meeting demand for Bengali language teaching in Borough mainstream primary schools (no supplementary question was asked)
The above questions and except where indicated, oral supplementary questions, were put and were responded to by the Mayor or relevant Cabinet Member.
(Action by: John Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
Minutes:
6.1 Question from Miss Sultana Begum:
What does the Mayor think about the Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson’s recent rises in London transport fares?
Response by Councillor Shahed Ali, Cabinet Member for Environment
Ken Livingstone as part of his draft manifesto for Mayor of London has announced on his ‘Ken for London’ website that… he will cut fares by 5% in the process and saving the average London transport user over £800 over 4 years.
A key part of the ‘One Tower Hamlets’ Community Plan is to tackle poverty and protect the environment and people’s health.
Increases in public transport fares can adversely impact on social inclusion and people’s economic wellbeing, particularly for poorer sections of the community.
Tower Hamlets Council’s Transport Planning Strategy (2011-2031), using data from Transport for London, indicates that public transport trips account for 37% of total trips in the borough with 21% of all trips by car, 15% by bus, 40% by walking and 2% by cycling.
Therefore, many residents of the borough rely on public transport, for example, to get to work, shopping, visit family and friends.
Increases in bus, tube, train and DLR fares can also encourage more people to go by car rather than travel in healthier, greener ways to the detriment of the quality of life for all in Tower Hamlets and the rest of London.
The recent increases in fares in London will impact on residents by making public transport less affordable and potentially reducing the attractiveness of bus, tube, DLR and rail services as a greener form of travel for local people.
As Tower Hamlets is ranked as the third most deprived local authority area in the country, after Hackney and Newham, any increases in public transport fares will significantly impact on people going to work and making other important journeys, particularly those having to live on the minimum wage or welfare benefits.
Summary of supplementary question from Miss Sultana Begum
Does the Lead Member have a view on Boris Johnson’s argument that Ken Livingstone’s proposal to use excess TfL revenue to reduce public transport fares is not realistic?
Summary of Councillor Shahed Ali’s response to the supplementary question
I will need to look at this in detail before making full comments but would make the point that, since Ken Livingstone left as Mayor of London, the cost of a single bus journey has gone from 90p to £1.35.
Change to Order of Business
At this point, Councillor Alibor Choudhury MOVED and Councillor Ohid Ahmed SECONDED, a procedural motion – “That under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to allow motions 12.1 and 12.9 to be considered as next business.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
12.1 Public transport and unaffordable fares
Councillor Fozol Miah MOVED and Councillor Harun Miah SECONDED, the motion as printed in the agenda.
Councillor Peter Golds MOVED, and Councillor Tim Archer SECONDED, a tabled amendment to the motion as follows:-
“Delete all after ‘This Council notes that’ and insert:
· Prior to the 2000 Mayoral election, Ken Livingstone’s Mayoral election manifesto stated “I will freeze bus and tube fares in real terms for four years.” In January 2004, the single bus fare outside zone 1 was increased by 43% and cash fares on the Tube rose by 25%.
· Prior to the 2004 Mayoral election, Ken Livingstone promised fares would not increase above the rate of inflation. In September 2004 he announced that Tube fares would rise at 1% above inflation and bus fares at 10% above inflation. A single bus fare was increased by 20%.Ken Livingstone has since admitted in his memoirs that “I decided to increase the fares before the [2004] election”.
· Prior to the 2008 Mayoral election, Ken Livingstone promised to freeze Tube fares in real terms. Leaked emails have since shown that Mr Livingstone had already in 2007 approved higher than real term Tube increases.
· “Mr Livingstone is wrong to claim there’s a £729m surplus, and there is no separate budget for investment projects. If he cuts fares, TfL expects to lose £1.12bn in income from fares – and that’s a hole he wouldn’t be able to plug without hitting the day-to-day funding for London’s transport or taking money from investment projects.”
· “How he’d do that is up to him, but it could mean that tube and bus route upgrades are delayed, or TfL could be forced to shed some staff members. Any mayoral candidate can raid the TfL’s coffers to cut fares. But cutting fares could mean cutting investment – which London’s transport system has been sorely starved of for decades. .”
This Council believes that:
· Boris Johnson’s fare restructuring is fair, and will bring long overdue Tube and transport infrastructure upgrades.
· Ken Livingstone’s argument that fare reductions can be paid for from a TFL surplus is misleading, as the latest TFL business plan shows all of the operational surplus in the next four years will be spent on capital projects.
· Ken Livingstone’s promises on Tube and bus fare increases have no credibility, and that his latest proposals are yet another cynical promise waiting to be broken.
This Council resolves:
- To support Boris Johnson’s plans to upgrade London’s transport infrastructure and Tube network.”
Following debate, the amendment moved by Councillor Golds was put to the vote and was defeated.
Following further debate, Councillor Joshua Peck MOVED and Councillor Alibor Choudhury SECONDED a procedural motion: ‘That under Procedure Rule 14.1.10, the question be now put.” The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
The substantive motion as printed in the agenda was then put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly, it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council notes that:
1) the importance of encouraging use of public transport to limit pollution in London and to save on use of fossil fuels which increase global warming
2) people on lower incomes are particularly dependent on public transport to ensure they can gain access for themselves and their families of the benefits of living in London
3) many people have seen or are seeing no rise in their incomes despite the fact inflation is over 5% and this is cutting their living standards
4) Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson is committed to raising fares on public transport in London year on year by 1% above inflation, despite falling living standards for many, particularly on lower incomes across the capital and in Tower Hamlets in particular
5) Ken Livingstone, the only candidate who realistically can be expected to replace the Tory mayor Boris Johnson in elections in May 2012, has promised to reduce fares by 5% if elected with no increase in fares in 2013.
This Council believes that:
1) the rise in fares proposed by the Tory Mayor Boris Johnson will have a severe effect on the living standards in London particularly of those on lower incomes
2) the rise in fares proposed by Tory Mayor Boris Johnson will discourage use of public transport
3) a reduction in fares rather than an increase is both affordable and desirable
This Council supports:
The plans announced by Ken Livingstone to reduce fares if elected next May
12.9 Support Ken Livingstone’s fair deal for transport
CouncillorRabina Khan MOVED, and Councillor Shafiqul Haque SECONDED, the motion as printed in the agenda.
Councillor Peter Golds MOVED, and Councillor Tim Archer SECONDED, a tabled amendment to the motion. The text of the amendment was the same as that moved by Councillor Golds at motion 12.1 above.
Following debate, the amendment moved by Councillor Golds was put to the vote and was defeated.
Following further debate, the substantive motion as printed in the agenda was then put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly, it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council notes:
1. That from January 2012 there has been a steep rise in bus, tube and rail fares under Tory Mayor Boris Johnson
2. That under the Tory mayor the cost of a single bus ticket has risen by a massive 50 per cent since 2008, whilst the price of a monthly zone 1-2 Travelcard is up 21% costing £230.40 per year more, and the price of zones 1-6 Travelcard is up a fifth.
3. That a key part of the "One Tower Hamlets" Community Plan is to tackle poverty and protect the environment and peoples' health.
4. That increases in public transport fares can adversely impact on social inclusion, mobility and people's economic well being, particularly for poorer sections of our community.
5. That increases in bus, tube, train and DLR fares can also encourage more people to use cars rather than public transport and therefore contribute to increased congestion and poorer air quality.
This Council believes:
1. That Boris Johnson’s transport polices are hurting our residents.
2. That we should support initiatives that seeks to reduce the costs of using public transport.
3. That Ken Livingstone’s manifesto pledge to cut fares immediately by 7%, to freeze them the next year and saving the average London Transport user £1000 over 4 years is good news for residents in Tower Hamlets and to be welcomed.
This Council resolves:
To support Ken Livingstone’s campaign to make fares affordable for Londoners.
6.2 Question from Mr Len Aldis:
Could the Mayor update me on his conversations with LOCOG regarding the controversial sponsorship of the Olympic Games by Dow Chemical?
Response by Councillor Rania Khan, Cabinet Member for Culture
Thank you Len for your question. The issue of LOCOG accepting sponsorship from Dow Chemical is causing widespread concern in view of Dow’s connections with the Union Carbide - Bhopal disaster which cost the lives of up to 25,000 people.
A joint letter was sent on behalf of the Mayor, Cllr Josh Peck (Labour Group), Fozol Miah (Respect Group) and Stephanie Eaton (Lib Dem) to Lord Coe expressing the view that it besmirched the reputation of the Olympics for it to have any association with Dow Chemicals.
Unfortunately, Lord Coe’s letter in response might well have been written for him by Dow Chemical’s public relations department.
In his reply Lord Coe stated that Dow had no responsibilities in relation to the Bhopal disaster as ‘they did not own or operate the Union Carbide India Limited Plant that was the site of the 1984 disaster’. He goes on to say that ‘Dow is an industry leader in terms of operating with the highest standards of ethics and sustainability’ and that LOCOG ‘stand behind’ Dow ‘both as a worldwide sponsor of the Olympic movement and as a supplier to LOCOG’.
The fact is that Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide they knew that Union Carbide was wanted on criminal charges pertaining to the Bhopal disaster. It is my view, and that of a wide array of public figures in this country and internationally, that Dow therefore has a responsibility to the victims of the Bhopal disaster.
Until it honours that responsibility any association with Dow puts a blemish on the 2012 Olympics which we are all looking forward to, and which we all want to ensure are a great success.
The Olympic ideal aspires to the best in fair play and ethics. LOCOG’s association with Dow diminishes those high ideals and aspirations.
Summary of supplementary question from Mr Len Aldis
I have visited Vietnam many times over the years and have seen many people affected after the war there by exposure to Agent Orange that was produced by Dow Chemical. I have since raised this with the Mayor and other agencies on behalf of organisations in Vietnam who were requesting help. I took a letter from those organisations to Lord Coe’s office asking that Dow Chemical be dropped as an Olympic sponsor, as they had been instrumental in creating three generations of disabled people in Vietnam. Their sponsorship was regarded by the Vietnamese people as an affront. Lord Coe’s response was therefore also an insult to them.
Change to Order of Business
At this point, Councillor Alibor Choudhury MOVED and Councillor Rania Khan SECONDED, a procedural motion – “That under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to allow motion 12.13 to be considered as next business.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
12.13 Dow Chemical, Bhopal and the Olympic Park
Councillor Lutfa Begum MOVED, and Councillor Rania Khan SECONDED, the motion as printed in the agenda.
After debate, Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman MOVED, and Councillor Joshua Peck SECONDED, a procedural motion – “That under Procedural Rule 14.1.10 the question be now put.” The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
The motion as printed in the agenda was then put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly, it was:-
RESOLVED
This meeting notes:
1. That on December 12 2011 Mayor Lutfur Rahman, Cllr Josh Peck (Labour Group), Fozol Miah (Respect Group) and Stephanie Eaton (Lib Dem) sent a joint letter to Lord Sebastian Coe, Chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) expressing concern over its decision to accept sponsorship for the Olympic Games from Dow Chemical, in light of its associations with the Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster.
2. That in a reply to that letter Lord Coe stated ‘Dow is an industry leader in terms of operating with the highest standards of ethics and sustainability’ and that LOCOG ‘stand behind’ Dow ‘both as a worldwide sponsor of the Olympic movement and as a supplier to LOCOG’.
3. That Lord Coe also stated that Dow Chemical had no responsibilities in relation to the Bhopal disaster as ‘they did not own or operate the Union Carbide India Limited Plant that was the site of the 1984 disaster’.
4. That due to campaign pressure Dow Chemical has agreed to remove all its branding from Britain’s Olympic stadium.
This meeting believes:
1. That when Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide they knew that Union Carbide were wanted on criminal charges pertaining to the Bhopal disaster.
2. That Dow therefore has a responsibility to the victims of the Bhopal disaster.
3. That any association with Dow tarnishes the name and reputation of the Olympics.
This meeting resolves:
To maintain pressure on LOCOG to drop Dow Chemical as a partner for the 2012 Olympics.
6.3 Question from Ms Catherine Tuitt:
In light of the Stephen Lawrence case concluding with two convictions, what further steps will the Mayor be taking to monitor, and eradicate, racial and hate crime and promote equality in the borough?
Response by Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor
Thank you for your question and welcome to the Council meeting. I know that you are one of those people who can stand up against all forms of racism and injustice, for equal rights and social justice. This is where you are different and you are true Labour, not like the imposters sitting in front of me.
Tackling discrimination and hate is a fundamental part of the Council’s approach to building One Tower Hamlets. In developing our work on tackling hate crime we have taken on the recommendations of the McPherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence. One of the recommendations of the McPherson report was to provide additional reporting means for victims of racism.
In response to this we have worked with the local Police to develop 12 Third Party Reporting Centres in the borough. These are key sites in the borough where victims are likely to attend. We will continue to maintain these centres and provide regular training to the Centre staff so that they can take reports sensitively and appropriately. We continue to promote the centres through effective publicity and outreach work.
This work is complimented by our No Place for Hate pledge which continues to gain support from individuals and organisations in the borough. It has a key role in encouraging everyone in the local community to join forces with the Council and take a stand against hate crime.
Tower Hamlets has a strong network of No Place for Hate Champions, a network of people trained in Hate Crime and supported by the Council to take action on hate crime. They have had many successes in raising awareness of hate crime, promoting reporting and ensuring that the message is widely spread in the community. Our No Place for Hate outreach work reaches far and wide, through attending key community events and forums across the borough, reaching hundreds of different groups of people each year. The Tower Hamlets No Place for Hate Board ensures that there is an effective partnership structure in place to deal with hate crime. It maintains an action plan of work on hate crime, to which Council and partner agencies contribute.
The monthly Tower Hamlets’ Hate Incidents Panel (HIP) meets monthly and is seen as a model of best practice in aiming to co-ordinate and review a top quality service provision across partners, for hate crime incidents. It also provides a forum for effective information sharing and enables appropriate actions to be taken to increase public safety.
Other key aspects of our work include the provision of a 24 hour Free phone reporting facility for victims of hate crime (0800 138 0521).
Further work planned for 2012 includes: -
· Production and distribution of an up to date Hate Crime Manual which assists professionals and volunteers to identify hate crime at an early stage and sign post victims appropriately.
· Providing refresher Hate Crime Training for the Council Call Centre staff who answer the Hate Crime hotline.
· Provision of Hate Crime training will be made available to all Council staff.
· Training of staff in charities and voluntary organisations in the borough including Tower Hamlets MIND (mental health charity).
· Training of Police and other key agencies on how to make referrals to the HIP
· We will continue to develop our approach in response to trends identified through analysis of hate crime data and engagement with communities.
Thank you for coming and again for all the good work that you do.
Summary of supplementary question from Ms Catherine Tuitt
Thank you for your comments – as you have mentioned a top quality service delivery, can I have your assurance that there will be increased resources to maintain the level of this activity in the Borough? Looking at issues included on your agenda, race and hate crime includes anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia and human trafficking.
Summary of Councillor Ohid Ahmed’s reply to the supplementary question
Thank you again, I can assure you that all necessary resources will be made available to address this problem.
Change to Order of Business
At this point, Councillor Alibor Choudhury MOVED and Councillor Ohid Ahmed SECONDED, a procedural motion – “That under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to allow motion 12.11 to be considered as next business.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
12.11 Remembering Stephen Lawrence
Councillor Abdul Asad MOVED, and Councillor Kabir Ahmed SECONDED, the motion as printed in the agenda.
After debate, Councillor Abdul Asad MOVED, and Councillor Kabir Ahmed SECONDED, a procedural motion – “That under Procedural Rule 14.1.10 the question be now put.” The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
The motion as printed in the agenda was then put to the vote and was agreed with no Member voting against. Accordingly, it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council notes:
1. That after eighteen years the Stephen Lawrence case has finally seen some resolution with two men convicted for his murder.
2. The dignity with which the Lawrence family have led their campaign.
3. That Stephen Lawrence’s murder highlights that there are people, albeit a tiny minority, who harbour a deep racism and may even be capable of terrible, violent acts.
4. The fact that Tower Hamlets is a multi cultural, multi racial borough, where the overwhelming majority of people work and live together happily, should not allow for any complacency.
5. That the Stephen Lawrence case also highlights the insidious nature of racism and how it can infect and distort the workings of institutions.
6. That among the findings of the Macpherson Inquiry was a clear conclusion about the existence of institutional racism in the police service and other public sector organizations.
7. That the Stephen Lawrence Centre in Deptford is facing closure due to lack of funding.
This Council believes:
That we owe it to the legacy of Stephen Lawrence and the hard work of the Lawrence family to strengthen our commitment to tackling institutional discrimination and exclusion and confronting all prejudices, inequalities and unfair treatment whether as a result of gender, sexuality, age, race, disability, religious affiliation, belief or class.
This Council resolves:
1. To write to the Lawrence Family on behalf of all councillors in an expression of support and solidarity.
2. To continue to campaign against all forms of discrimination and hatred.
3. To explore all we can do to help the Stephen Lawrence Centre to continue its important work.
Point of Order
At this point Councillor Joshua Peck rose on a point of order. He stated that it was extremely sad that a debate on which there was absolute unanimity across the chamber, had started with a statement from the Deputy Mayor that Councillor Peck found to be outrageous and unacceptable. Councillor Peck stated that the Deputy Mayor had said to Ms Tuitt ‘you stand up to racism, you don’t accept any racism, you are different to those opposite’ and he felt that the clear implication of this was that the members of the Labour Group failed to stand up to racism and accept racism.
Councillor Peck further stated that at the last full Council meeting, the Deputy Mayor had also made an allegation that councillors were trying to amend the constitution simply for the reason that the Mayor was Bangladeshi. This was again a clear accusation that members of the Council were racist. He had received a rather thin, three line apology for that from the Deputy Mayor dated today, three months after the event. Councillor Peck felt that the Deputy Mayor’s further comments at the current meeting showed that apology to be worthless. He proposed that the Deputy Mayor’s comments be recorded verbatim in the minutes of the meeting and he invited the Deputy Mayor to apologise and withdraw his remarks.
Councillor Peter Golds stated that he also found the Deputy Mayor’s allegations made at the previous meeting about members of the Council to be outrageous. He sought an apology and supported Councillor Peck’s request that the Deputy mayor’s comments be recorded in the minutes.
Point of Personal Explanation
Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor rose to make a point of personal explanation. He stated that if the Speaker had not stopped him from completing his speech at the last meeting, the current situation would not have arisen. He had written to Councillor Peck and Councillor Golds regarding that meeting but if those councillors wished to take the matter further he would be happy to do so and challenge this issue.
In relation to the current debate, Councillor Ahmed stated that Councillor Peck should stop playing petty politics. He had said to the public questioner, Ms Tuitt that she was true Labour, rather than some in the chamber who were imposter Labour. Councillor Ahmed stated that this was nothing different from what he had said before.
The Speaker of the Council stated that the comments made by Members had been noted.
6.4 Question from Ms Syeda Nasima:
What steps is the Mayor taking to respond to the demand in the community for Bengali language teaching in mainstream primary schools in Tower Hamlets?
Response by Councillor Oliur Rahman, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services
Thank you for your question. I am pleased to see the enthusiasm of parents for mother-tongue teaching in our primary schools. This has been greatly expressed through a number of signed petition sheets addressed to individual schools in the borough.
Our Members are talking to senior officers, schools and governors about refreshing the current strategy. Formal consultation will take place at the Head Teachers’ Forum and Heads Consultative meeting this term.
Our borough is introducing Level 1 and Level 2 courses in Bengali for class teachers and Senior Leadership Team (SLT) to build schools’ capacity. However, we as a Local Authority have no power to instruct schools on the issue of choosing a subject. It is an internal matter and schools decide independently, in consultation with their staff, parents and governors.
(No supplementary question was asked.)
Supporting documents: