Agenda item
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The questions which have been received from members of the public for this Council 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 Mr Muhammed Haque regarding arrangements for auditing and overseeing the conduct of bodies now responsible for formerly Council-owned and Council controlled housing stock.
6.2 Question from Mrs Janet Wade requesting information on the amended Open Spaces Strategy and requesting limitations on events held in Council parks.
6.3 Question from Mr Steven Barthram requesting a breakdown of money spent on the regeneration of Roman Road market area.
6.4 Question from Mr Syed Akamot Ali regarding the reinstatement of the lavatory in Whitechapel Market and improvements needed to the market environment.
6.5 Question from Mr Nic Bentley regarding public consultation around Thames Water’s proposal for a Thames Tideway Tunnel site at Highway Business Park, Heckford Street.
6.6 Question from Ms Kathy McTasney regarding Council support for residents affected by the Bedroom Tax. (Question withdrawn.)
6.7 Question from Mr Omar Sharif regarding the conduct of Councillors during Council meetings.
6.8 Question from Mr Yousuf Khan regarding the work of the Students Rights organisation on university campuses.
6.9 Question from Mr Abjol Miah regarding the murder in Woolwich and subsequent reprisals by the EDL.
Questions 6.1 to 6.4, and in each case a supplementary question, were put and responded to by the relevant Executive Member. Question 6.6 was withdrawn. Questions 6.5 and 6.7 to 6.9 were not considered due to lack of time. Written responses will be provided to the questioners.
(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services – to arrange written responses)
NOTE: During consideration of question 6.1, the Speaker adjourned the meeting at 8.25 p.m., reconvening at 8.41 p.m., due to disruption in the public gallery.
Procedural motion
Following consideration of question 6.2, Councillor Timothy Archer moved, and Councillor David Snowdon seconded, a procedural motion - “That under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to allow motion 12.10 (Motion regarding Parks and Open Spaces) to be considered as next business.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was defeated.
Procedural motion
Following consideration of question 6.4, Councillor Sirajul Islam moved, and Councillor Rachael Saunders seconded a procedural motion –“That Procedure Rule 13.1 be suspended to allow consideration of an urgent motion on the Comprehensive Spending Review as the next item of business.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
Urgent motion: Comprehensive Spending Review
Councillor Sirajul Islam moved, and Councillor Rachael Saunders seconded, a tabled urgent motion on the Comprehensive Spending Review as set out below.
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
DECISION
This Council notes:
-
Britain's economy has
flatlined for over two years, with
nearly one million young people out of work.
-
Under the Tories we have had the slowest recovery
for 100 years.
-
Prices are still going up faster than
wages.
-
The IMF have called on
the Government to boost infrastructure.
-
The next Government is now forecast to inherit
borrowing of £96bn in 2015, when George Osborne said it would
be just £18bn.
-
Instead of coming down, the deficit is set to be the
same next year as it was this year and last year. And no growth
means the Government is set to borrow £245 billion more than
planned.
-
Today’s Comprehensive Spending Review saw the
Government announce further cuts of 2% to local authority budgets in 2015/16.
-
Last Sunday 141 Local Authority Leaders
united to co-sign a cross-party open letter to the Observer calling
for a halt to government cuts to local authority budgets, the Mayor
of Tower Hamlets failed to join this call.
-
In its first three years the Tory-led
Government has spent £5.4 billion less in capital investment
when compared to the plans inherited from Labour.
-
The Government’s decision last year
to introduce a Strivers’ Tax by cutting the support for
14,000 working families in Tower Hamlets means ordinary people are
picking up the bill for the cost of George
Osborne’s economic failure.
- As a result of measures announced in the Autumn Statement a one earner couple with children will be on average £534 a year worse off by the end of the Parliament.
This Council believes:
-
For ordinary people life is getting harder. The
Government is failing to turn things around. While the Tories say
the economy is healing, for most families it’s getting worse
with prices rising faster than wages. Britain can’t afford to
go on like this.
-
Today’s Spending Review should have been an
opportunity to boost jobs and growth now and for the future, which
would have been the best way to reduce the scale of the cuts the
government plans for public services in 2015-16.
-
Cutting taxes by an average of £100,000 for
13,000 people earning over one million pounds shows the misguided
priorities of the Conservative led Government.
-
David Cameron is more interested in exploiting the
challenges the country faces than solving them, dividing the
country, between north and south, public and private, and between
those who can work and those who cannot.
- The Government is failing to stand up to the banks, from bonuses to the interest rate scandal. Whilst at the same time standing aside and failing to take action to tackle youth unemployment, with no plan for the forgotten 50% who don’t go to university.
This
Council further believes:
-
Whilst the Council remains opposed to the
Government’s cuts to local government budgets, the Mayor has
a duty to manage the Council’s finances
efficiently, delivering a balanced budget to ensure long term
stability of services for residents;
-
The Mayors budget agreed in March shows
that the council will be spending £39m more than it will
be receiving in 2015-2016, with £25m of this currently
unfunded;
-
The unfunded gap in 2016/17 is estimated
to be £55m
- The Mayor's key spending priorities amount to a further £10m that end in 2014/15 and therefore continuing these would require a further £10m of savings on top.
This Council Resolves:
-
To condemn the Conservative led
Government’s failure to get growth into the
economy.
-
To support Labour’s alternative
plan marrying iron discipline with a focus on growth and securing a
lasting difference for all in our society.
- To call upon the Mayor of Tower Hamlets to set out a sustainable plan to protect the long-term finances of the Council.
(Action by: Chris Holme, interim Corporate Director, Resources)
Procedural motion
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman moved, and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded, a procedural motion – “That Procedure Rule 13.1 be suspended to allow consideration of an emergency motion on the use of the Mayor’s car as the next item of business.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
Urgent motion: Use of the Mayor’s Car
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman moved, and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded, a tabled urgent motion on the use of the Mayor’s car, as set out below.
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
DECISION
This Council Notes:
-
The Channel 4 Dispatches programme which revealed
worrying practices related to the Mayor’s use of his Council
funded car.
-
The East London Advertiser article of the 19th June entitled
“Channel 4 Dispatches challenged over its filming of Tower
Hamlets mayor” which revealed that the Mayor threatened legal
action against Channel 4
- The Mayor and the Council’s responsibility to provide best value for money for taxpayers.
- The Mayor’s Office response to the allegations in the programme:
1. £71 for a taxi fare of 400m
In response to a Freedom of Information request that
revealed exorbitantly high taxi costs, the Mayor ordered a review
of travel arrangements. It is our opinion that the taxi company may
be overcharging passengers.
2. Driver waits outside Lutfur’s house for 30 minutes (12:55pm)
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for
many years, serving under several successive administrations. The
30 minutes waiting time will not have resulted in any extra cost to
the taxpayer.
3. Drives to the Mosque for Friday prayers
The Mosque is a key community hub. The Mayor regularly goes to Friday prayers after which he is accessible to residents, meets with local residents and discusses their concerns.
We have examples of casework raised by the Mayor
following this visit.
4. Circles for 1:30 hours
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for
many years, serving under several successive administrations. The
1:30 hours’ driving time will not have resulted in any extra
cost to the taxpayer.
We also believe that the cost of petrol for the time spent
“circling” is less than parking charges for the
equivalent time.
5. Takes Lutfur to Zaza’s grill
This was a working lunch with local residents and
organisations.
6. Double parks in a bus lane
Clearly this is not ideal; however our understanding is that the car was only in the bus lane for a matter of minutes. There is no evidence that this constituted an offence under the Highways Act.
7. Waits for 1:35 hours
The 1:35 hours’ driving time will not have
resulted in any extra cost to the taxpayer.
8. Waits outside house for 20 minutes
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for many years, serving under several successive administrations. The 1:30 hours’ driving time did not result in any extra cost to the taxpayer.
9. Drives Lutfur to the East London Mosque (0.2 miles)
The Mosque is a key community hub. The Mosque is a
key community hub. The Mayor regularly goes to Friday prayers after
which he is accessible to residents, meets local residents and
discusses their concerns.
We have examples of casework raised by the Mayor following this
visit.
10. Waits outside Mosque for 2 hours and six minutes before leaving (no mention of whether Lutfur goes with)
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for
many years, serving under several successive administrations. 2
hours’ driving time will not have resulted in any extra cost
to the taxpayer. The Mayor also attended the funeral of the mother
of a councillor colleague.
11. Saturday, driver “delivered” 2 bundles dry cleaning
The Mayor’s wife transferred the dry cleaning
from her own car to the Mayor’s car the previous night. The
driver merely gave the Mayor this dry cleaning.
12. Waits for 28 minutes before taking Lutfur to Battle of Atlantic Memorial
The driver arrived early, taking the Mayor to Trinity Square Gardens, a significant distance from his home.”
This Council Believes:
-
The questionable usage of the Mayor’s car
raised in the programme reflects badly upon the borough and damages
the reputation of the Council.
-
That there are serious concerns raised by the
response offered by the Mayor’s office including on the
following basis:
o
No taxi should ever have been approved for a 400m
journey, especially not with a £71 charge. This shows a
failure of auditing within the management of the Mayor’s
office and a failure of responsibility from the councillor
involved.
o
In total over the short time period covered by
Dispatches the Mayor justified almost 7 hours of wasted employee
time by having his driver wait for him.
o
The Mayor’s justification that there was no
cost to the taxpayer is both disingenuous and wrong as paying an
officer to wait around for the Mayor is an undeniable waste of
public money when that officer could be performing other
duties.
o
Not only is double parking in a bus lane ‘not
ideal’ it is illegal and a traffic offence. Elected
politicians should observe the highest standards and set an
example, not flout the rules they expect others to live
by.
o The Mayor should not need a driver to take him to a venue 0.2m from his home to the East London Mosque especially when the driver then has to wait for two hours.
This Council further believes:
-
That threatening legal action at the cost of the tax
payer against Channel 4 not only further undermines the reputation
of the borough but also represents another potential waste of tax
payer money.
This Council resolves:
-
To condemn the Mayor for his wasteful use of tax
payer money.
-
To ask the 151 officer to review the business case
and public value for money discerned from the retention of the
Mayor’s private car and report back to the next full Council
meeting.
- To welcome Labour Mayoral Candidate John Biggs’ pledge to do away with the Mayoral car upon his election and redeploy the mayoral driver to other duties.
(Action by: Chris Holme, interim Corporate Director, Resources)
Minutes:
The Service Head, Democratic Services reminded the Council that there was a maximum period of 20 minutes for public questions. He advised the meeting that question 6.6 was withdrawn as the questioner had unfortunately had to attend a funeral on the day of the meeting. The questioner would be offered the opportunity to put her question at the next meeting.
6.1 Question from Mr Muhammad Haque, Organiser, the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign in Defence of the Community in the East End of London
What is Tower Hamlets Council’s Constitutionally installed and transparently DEMOCRATICALLY active audit procedure for overseeing the conduct of those bodies especially the ones that have been allowed to take over the control of formerly Council-owned and Council controlled Housing stock in the context of the clear and the express undertaking given by LBTH Council to the Community and parts of the Community in the Borough on the relevant estates affected by the implications of the stock transfer procedures that were put into operation?
Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing
Thank you for your question.
The Council transferred over 10,000 properties to 8 Registered Providers (RPs) under the Housing Choice programme. This was to lever £448 million pounds worth of investment into the stock. Promises made under the Housing Choice programme were included in contracts as obligations which are monitored twice annually by the Strategic Housing Team.
The Council is currently collecting information on progress made up until the end of the 2012/13 financial year. A number of RPs have reported that they have completed the contractual obligations. Officers are now establishing an audit process in order to satisfy the Council that the programmes are indeed complete.
As Cabinet Member for Housing I work very closely with tenants to ensure democratic accountability registered providers. For example:
· Residents of Lantern Court on the Isle of Dogs managed by the Guiness Trust were worried about their energy bills possibly caused by the faults in their combined hot water and heating system. Between September 2012 and February 2013 I held 3 resident meetings and worked with residents on the development of Lanterns Court Neighbourhood Agreement and Action Plan.
· After Pheonix Heights TRA held their provider to account to get water charges wrongly included in their service charges refunded I have worked with the TRA, the resgistered provider and Thames Water to ensure all residents' water meters are checked to ensure future water bills from Thames Water are correct.
The Council has a list of Preferred Development Partners building in the borough and is currently producing a Performance Management Framework to raise standards in housing management among Registered Providers working in Tower Hamlets.
The Homes and Communities Agency retains the remit to regulate Registered Providers. The HCA’s regulation is around consumer and economic standards which are outlined in its Regulatory Framework.
Summary of Supplementary Question from Mr Muhammad Haque
What traceable evidence is there of what the Council representatives on those bodies dealing with housing stock actually do to represent the Council’s interests?
Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the Supplementary Question
Tenants have drawn our attention to the fact that many RPs are changing their Memoranda of Association. It is the tenants who hold them responsible and the best way forward is to ensure Registered Providers have the best possible levels of tenant representatives.
NOTE: During consideration of Public Question 6.1, the Speaker adjourned the meeting at 8.25 p.m., reconvening at 8.41 p.m., due to disruption in the public gallery. The Speaker reminded all present that no unauthorised recording or filming was permitted in the meeting without her express permission.
6.2 Question from Ms Janet Wade
Can the Mayor please tell us why he has still failed to bring forward the amended Open Spaces Strategy to full council, despite Full Council twice passing a motion on 16 May 2012 and 17 April 2013 to limit the number of events in Victoria Park to 6 days each year, prevent the park being used for commercial events on consecutive weekends, set a closing time for events to 10pm and a reduced noise limit for commercial events, and to prevent commercial events being held in Sir John McDougal Gardens, Millwall Park, Island Gardens and the gardens at Trinity Square?
Response by Councillor Shahed Ali, Cabinet Member for Environment
Thank you for your question. In these extremely difficult times, the Mayor’s priorities are housing, education, and protecting the most vulnerable from the brutal reforms to the welfare system by the Tories.
Although open spaces are very important to residents’ sense of wellbeing, this administration must prioritise putting a roof over people’s heads and helping them put food on the table.
The amended Open Spaces Strategy is being drawn up and will be considered in due course.
Summary of Supplementary Question from Ms Janet Wade
Will it contain policies to limit the number of events in Victoria Park, prevent the park being used for commercial events on consecutive weekends, set an earlier closing time for events and a reduced noise limit for commercial events?
Summary of Councillor Shahed Ali’s response to the Supplementary Question
There will be an extensive consultation process and you are welcome to make your views known through the proper channels and at the appropriate time.
Procedural motion
Following consideration of question 6.2, Councillor Timothy Archer moved, and Councillor David Snowdon seconded, a procedural motion - “That under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to allow motion 12.10 (Motion regarding Parks and Open Spaces) to be considered as next business.”
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was defeated.
6.3 Question from Mr Steven Barthram
Recently I was pleased to learn that our high streets including Roman Road Market will receive a cash injection of some £355K following your recent budget, to encourage local economic growth. But, Mr Mayor, residents are unaware how an earlier more substantial investment was utilised to regenerate the Roman Road market area. Can you therefore give us a complete breakdown of how the £1.6 million was spent, and will you please undertake a full Mayoral Inquiry into the spending of this vast sum of money?
Response by Councillor Alibor Choudhury, Cabinet Member for Resources
Thank you for your question Steve. This is a very emotive subject and I have obtained as much information as possible.
The Council tells me that the money has been spent on the following:
· A staggering £1.21m was invested in a number of schemes to regenerate the Roman Road area.
· £153,088k on shop front improvement grants in Roman Road East. Seven businesses received new shop fronts
· £900,000k on transportation, highways and public realm improvements, although paid for by DCLG.
In addition, £158,522k was spent on training and other business support. This comprised:-
· £120,057 for training and support for shopkeepers and markettraders, including business coaching, visual merchandising advice, one-to-one training sessions and inward investment promotion across London
· £38,495 for a ‘shop local’ campaign for the centre to promote andbranded Roman Road as a place to shop, delivered in consultation with residents, market traders and shopkeepers
Summary of Supplementary Question from Mr Steven Barthram
But local residents have seen little or no improvement. Why is this and will the Mayor investigate?
Summary of Councillor Alibor Choudhury’s response to the Supplementary Question
I have to stress that the scheme was not agreed under this administration and was led by Councillor Joshua Peck who was on the Steering Group dealing with the matter. I do not know why residents have not seen improvements and I will ensure there is a forensic audit of how the spending was overseen.
6.4 Question from Mr Syed Akamot Ali, Tower Hamlets Traders Business Association UK
Can the Mayor explain why he removed the gangway between stalls in Whitechapel? When will he reinstate the lavatory in Whitechapel Market for stall holders and residents? When will he improve the Whitechapel Market surface and provide decent permanent stall infrastructure?
Response by Councillor Shahed Ali, Cabinet Member for Environment
Thank you for your question.
Whitechapel Market is one of our most successful markets and we are delighted that through High Street 2012, we have been able to put in place a number of improvements for stall holders and for shoppers and visitors. If you go to the market today, you’ll see the fruits of that investment already.
The entire are of Whitechapel Market footway was resurfaced in 2011/12 along with new lighting, stall markings and the creation of public spaces.
I know that there has since been a number of utility trenches and Crossrail works which has damaged some of this work. However we always work with contractors to ensure they repair the road surface to the highest possible standard.
Many stallholders felt that the lavatory was a source of anti-social behaviour, street drinking, etc. The original toilet facility was removed to provide more space for the expanding market. We have an arrangement for stallholders to use the Ideas Store facilities pending a review of the facilities for the market but if it is felt there is a need for a lavatory, this will be considered.
Summary of Supplementary Question from Mr Syed Akamot Ali
Why was the gangway removed and why are stall sizes now smaller?
Summary of Councillor Shahed Ali’s response to the Supplementary Question
Councillors Aminur Khan and Abdul Asad met the market traders and no such concerns were raised at the time. The stall sizes have actually increased, but lack of enforcement previously meant that people had enjoyed larger areas than they were entitled to.
Expiry of time limit
At this point, the Speaker indicated that the time limit for Public Questions had been reached and she apologised to the others present who had submitted questions as these could not now be put. With the exception of question 6.6 which had been withdrawn, written responses would be provided to the remaining questions
[Note: the written answers are appended in Appendix A to these minutes.]
Procedural motion
Following consideration of question 6.4, Councillor Sirajul Islam moved, and Councillor Rachael Saunders seconded a procedural motion –“That Procedure Rule 13.1 be suspended to allow consideration of an urgent motion on the Comprehensive Spending Review as the next item of business.” [Note: the text of the motion is set out below.]
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
Urgent motion: Comprehensive Spending Review
Councillor Sirajul Islam moved, and Councillor Rachael Saunders seconded, a tabled urgent motion on the Comprehensive Spending Review as set out below.
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council notes:
-
Britain's economy has
flatlined for over two years, with
nearly one million young people out of work.
-
Under the Tories we have had the slowest recovery
for 100 years.
-
Prices are still going up faster than
wages.
-
The IMF have called on
the Government to boost infrastructure.
-
The next Government is now forecast to inherit
borrowing of £96bn in 2015, when George Osborne said it would
be just £18bn.
-
Instead of coming down, the deficit is set to be the
same next year as it was this year and last year. And no growth
means the Government is set to borrow £245 billion more than
planned.
-
Today’s Comprehensive Spending Review saw the
Government announce further cuts of 2% to local authority budgets in 2015/16.
-
Last Sunday 141 Local Authority Leaders
united to co-sign a cross-party open letter to the Observer calling
for a halt to government cuts to local authority budgets, the Mayor
of Tower Hamlets failed to join this call.
-
In its first three years the Tory-led
Government has spent £5.4 billion less in capital investment
when compared to the plans inherited from Labour.
-
The Government’s decision last year
to introduce a Strivers’ Tax by cutting the support for
14,000 working families in Tower Hamlets means ordinary people are
picking up the bill for the cost of George
Osborne’s economic failure.
- As a result of measures announced in the Autumn Statement a one earner couple with children will be on average £534 a year worse off by the end of the Parliament.
This Council believes:
-
For ordinary people life is getting harder. The
Government is failing to turn things around. While the Tories say
the economy is healing, for most families it’s getting worse
with prices rising faster than wages. Britain can’t afford to
go on like this.
-
Today’s Spending Review should have been an
opportunity to boost jobs and growth now and for the future, which
would have been the best way to reduce the scale of the cuts the
government plans for public services in 2015-16.
-
Cutting taxes by an average of £100,000 for
13,000 people earning over one million pounds shows the misguided
priorities of the Conservative led Government.
-
David Cameron is more interested in exploiting the
challenges the country faces than solving them, dividing the
country, between north and south, public and private, and between
those who can work and those who cannot.
- The Government is failing to stand up to the banks, from bonuses to the interest rate scandal. Whilst at the same time standing aside and failing to take action to tackle youth unemployment, with no plan for the forgotten 50% who don’t go to university.
This
Council further believes:
-
Whilst the Council remains opposed to the
Government’s cuts to local government budgets, the Mayor has
a duty to manage the Council’s finances
efficiently, delivering a balanced budget to ensure long term
stability of services for residents;
-
The Mayors budget agreed in March shows
that the council will be spending £39m more than it will
be receiving in 2015-2016, with £25m of this currently
unfunded;
-
The unfunded gap in 2016/17 is estimated
to be £55m
- The Mayor's key spending priorities amount to a further £10m that end in 2014/15 and therefore continuing these would require a further £10m of savings on top.
This Council Resolves:
-
To condemn the Conservative led
Government’s failure to get growth into the
economy.
-
To support Labour’s alternative
plan marrying iron discipline with a focus on growth and securing a
lasting difference for all in our society.
- To call upon the Mayor of Tower Hamlets to set out a sustainable plan to protect the long-term finances of the Council.
Procedural motion
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman moved, and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded, a procedural motion – “That Procedure Rule 13.1 be suspended to allow consideration of an emergency motion on the use of the Mayor’s car as the next item of business.” [Note: the text of the motion is set out below.]
The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
Urgent motion: Use of the Mayor’s Car
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman moved, and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded, a tabled urgent motion on the use of the Mayor’s car, as set out below.
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed. Accordingly it was:-
RESOLVED
This Council Notes:
-
The Channel 4 Dispatches programme which revealed
worrying practices related to the Mayor’s use of his Council
funded car.
-
The East London Advertiser article of the 19th June entitled
“Channel 4 Dispatches challenged over its filming of Tower
Hamlets mayor” which revealed that the Mayor threatened legal
action against Channel 4
- The Mayor and the Council’s responsibility to provide best value for money for taxpayers.
- The Mayor’s Office response to the allegations in the programme:
1. £71 for a taxi fare of 400m
In response to a Freedom of Information request that
revealed exorbitantly high taxi costs, the Mayor ordered a review
of travel arrangements. It is our opinion that the taxi company may
be overcharging passengers.
2. Driver waits outside Lutfur’s house for 30 minutes (12:55pm)
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for
many years, serving under several successive administrations. The
30 minutes waiting time will not have resulted in any extra cost to
the taxpayer.
3. Drives to the Mosque for Friday prayers
The Mosque is a key community hub. The Mayor regularly goes to Friday prayers after which he is accessible to residents, meets with local residents and discusses their concerns.
We have examples of casework raised by the Mayor
following this visit.
4. Circles for 1:30 hours
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for
many years, serving under several successive administrations. The
1:30 hours’ driving time will not have resulted in any extra
cost to the taxpayer.
We also believe that the cost of petrol for the time spent
“circling” is less than parking charges for the
equivalent time.
5. Takes Lutfur to Zaza’s grill
This was a working lunch with local residents and
organisations.
6. Double parks in a bus lane
Clearly this is not ideal; however our understanding is that the car was only in the bus lane for a matter of minutes. There is no evidence that this constituted an offence under the Highways Act.
7. Waits for 1:35 hours
The 1:35 hours’ driving time will not have
resulted in any extra cost to the taxpayer.
8. Waits outside house for 20 minutes
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for many years, serving under several successive administrations. The 1:30 hours’ driving time did not result in any extra cost to the taxpayer.
9. Drives Lutfur to the East London Mosque (0.2 miles)
The Mosque is a key community hub. The Mosque is a
key community hub. The Mayor regularly goes to Friday prayers after
which he is accessible to residents, meets local residents and
discusses their concerns. We have
examples of casework raised by the Mayor following this
visit.
10. Waits outside Mosque for 2 hours and six minutes before leaving (no mention of whether Lutfur goes with)
The driver has been a salaried member of staff for
many years, serving under several successive administrations. 2
hours’ driving time will not have resulted in any extra cost
to the taxpayer. The Mayor also attended the funeral of the mother
of a councillor colleague.
11. Saturday, driver “delivered” 2 bundles dry cleaning
The Mayor’s wife transferred the dry cleaning
from her own car to the Mayor’s car the previous night. The
driver merely gave the Mayor this dry cleaning.
12. Waits for 28 minutes before taking Lutfur to Battle of Atlantic Memorial
The driver arrived early, taking the Mayor to Trinity Square Gardens, a significant distance from his home.”
This Council Believes:
-
The questionable usage of the Mayor’s car
raised in the programme reflects badly upon the borough and damages
the reputation of the Council.
-
That there are serious concerns raised by the
response offered by the Mayor’s office including on the
following basis:
o
No taxi should ever have been approved for a 400m
journey, especially not with a £71 charge. This shows a
failure of auditing within the management of the Mayor’s
office and a failure of responsibility from the councillor
involved.
o
In total over the short time period covered by
Dispatches the Mayor justified almost 7 hours of wasted employee
time by having his driver wait for him.
o
The Mayor’s justification that there was no
cost to the taxpayer is both disingenuous and wrong as paying an
officer to wait around for the Mayor is an undeniable waste of
public money when that officer could be performing other
duties.
o
Not only is double parking in a bus lane ‘not
ideal’ it is illegal and a traffic offence. Elected
politicians should observe the highest standards and set an
example, not flout the rules they expect others to live
by.
o The Mayor should not need a driver to take him to a venue 0.2m from his home to the East London Mosque especially when the driver then has to wait for two hours.
This Council further believes:
-
That threatening legal action at the cost of the tax
payer against Channel 4 not only further undermines the reputation
of the borough but also represents another potential waste of tax
payer money.
This Council resolves:
-
To condemn the Mayor for his wasteful use of tax
payer money.
-
To ask the 151 officer to review the business case
and public value for money discerned from the retention of the
Mayor’s private car and report back to the next full Council
meeting.
- To welcome Labour Mayoral Candidate John Biggs’ pledge to do away with the Mayoral car upon his election and redeploy the mayoral driver to other duties.
Supporting documents: