12.3    Motion regarding the Best Value Inspection

           undertaken by PwC

 

Councillor Peter Golds moved, and Councillor Chris Chapman seconded, the motion as printed on the agenda.

 

During debate Councillor Rachael Saunders moved, and Councillor Shiria Khatun seconded, an amendment. Following debate the amendment was put to the vote and was agreed.  The substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and was agreed as below.

 

RESOLVED

 

This Council believes:

 

1.    That a wide range of local people and organisations have tenaciously fought long standing campaigns on unjust distribution of grants, improper decision making in the procurement of services and failures in the disposal of assets, including through rigorous scrutiny and debates at full council. 

 

2.    That public money is at stake, along with public trust and proper accountability. Every community in our country is entitled to the highest standards of probity and honesty in our democracy. No community should have to put up with lower standards of democracy and transparency. 

 

3.    That the Mayor and his administration can no longer avoid taking responsibility for their failures now that an audit report has set out multiple failures of the best value duty. 

 

4.    That in the debate in the House of Commons, Members of Parliament from across political parties were shocked by the failures of the administration and the Mayor.

 

5.    That multiple failures of the best value duty – the statutory responsibility of local authorities to do the right thing with tax payer’s money – are extremely serious, and that local people are deeply concerned about the leadership of this authority. 

 

This Council further believes: 

 

1.    That the report sets out nine ongoing criminal investigations into alleged fraud relating to youth services.

 

2.    That the report demonstrates that, through changes to grants recommendations, the Mayor chose to make cuts to vital services in the poorest parts of the borough, whilst giving money to organisations ruled ineligible. 

 

3.    That the view of the auditors is that “current governance arrangements do not appear to be capable of preventing or responding appropriately to failures of the best value duty”. 

 

4.    That Lutfur Rahman has brought shame to our great borough, and should consider his position. 

 

5.    That there are many important questions to which local people deserve answers.

 

This Council resolves:

 

1.    To require from the Mayor and senior management team of the council a full response to the issues raised in the auditor’s report, including but not limited to answers to the following questions:

 

·         According to the audit report, there is evidence of nine incidents of alleged fraud in relation to the Youth and Community Service, and that “no discernible procurement process appears to have been followed”. Please provide the fullest possible information about these payments.  Will the Mayor and corporate director cooperate fully to ensure that these police enquiries can be concluded as soon as possible?  What action will the mayor take to reassure local people about the quality and integrity of their youth services? 

 

·         The report has found that the Mayor’s decisions led to cuts in grants to the poorest parts of the borough.  What is the mayor’s explanation for these cuts?  What will he do to reinstate the services that were cut unjustly?  Please provide full information about the monitoring that has been done of services funded through all grants awarded since May 2010.

 

·         There are multiple examples of buildings – Poplar Town Hall, Sutton St depot – sold to bidders who submitted their bids after those from their competitors had been opened.  Why was a one year rent free period given, and why was £50,000 given for health and safety works?  Why was £135,000 handed over to a private business?  This incentive was not offered to other bidders.  Does the Mayor regard this as acceptable practice?  What will he do to prevent it happening again?  Who does he regard as responsible for their failures of the Best Value Duty? 

 

·         Over the course of this four year term the Mayor proposes to spend £1.4million on mayoral advisers.  The audit report found that spending on his media advisers failed the best value duty.  Will he cut his wasteful advisers instead of proposed cuts to nurseries for disabled children and proposed cuts to social services? 

 

·         What was the 954 fund?

 

·         Can the Mayor explain his role in the procurement of learning disability day services, as set out in the report?  How did that decision relate to what was happening with the mainstream grants process? 

 

2.    This Council resolves that this should be sent to all Councillors by the 12^th December 2014.

 

3.    That this response should also answer all issues and questions raised in the original motion 12.3, and should cover all other issues of public concern and each of the best value failures identified. 

 

4.    That following receipt of this, and its consideration by political groups on the council, (or in any case if a response from the executive is not forthcoming)  we mandate the Overview and Scrutiny committee to undertake further interrogation of issues raised in the report as it sees appropriate, and to report back to Full Council on its findings.  

This Council further resolves: 

 

1.    That whilst it is a source of shame to this borough that we have reached the point of government intervention, this council resolves to work constructively with commissioners, assuming that they are appointed.

 

2.    That it is vital that scrutiny arrangements are in place to provide democratic oversight of the work of the commissioners.  To call on the head of paid service to ensure these arrangements are in place. 

 

3.    To call on the Head of Paid Service to convene the long awaited governance review, with councillor representation from all political groups and representatives from the LGA, as a matter of urgency, in the light of the governance failures set out in the report. 

 

4.    To reaffirm our position on the need for a Chief Executive with full authority, and permanent appointments to the other two statutory officer positions. 

 

5.    That, if Lutfur Rahman and his Cabinet increased the cost of the audit through delays, he should pay from his own pocket.  Local people have already paid many times over for his failures.

 

Under Procedure Rule 17.6 all Councillors requested that their votes on the above resolution be recorded as follows:

 

In favour of the motion (24 Councillors):

 

Councillor Rajib Ahmed

Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed

Councillor Amina Ali

Councillor Craig Aston

Councillor Asma Begum

Councillor Rachel Blake

Councillor Chris Chapman

Councillor Dave Chesterton

Councillor Denise Jones

Councillor Julia Dockerill

Councillor David Edgar

Councillor Clare Harrisson

Councillor Danny Hassell

Councillor Joshua Peck

Councillor Marc Francis

Councillor Peter Golds

Councillor John Pierce

Councillor Candida Ronald

Councillor Rachael Saunders

Councillor Shiria Khatun

Councillor Sirajul Islam

Councillor Helal Uddin

Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs

Councillor Andrew Wood

 

Against the Motion (15 Councillors):

 

Councillor Abdul Asad

Councillor Suluk Ahmed

Councillor Shahed Ali

Councillor Mahbub Alam

Councillor Shah Alam

Councillor Alibor Choudhury

Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury

Councillor Shafiqul Haque

Councillor Rabina Khan

Councillor Aminur Khan

Councillor Harun Miah

Councillor Mohammed Maium Miah

Councillor Abjol Miah

Councillor Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim

Councillor Gulam Robbani

 

 

Procedural Motion

 

During the debate on the above motion, Councillor Rachael Saunders moved, and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded, a procedural motion “that

under Procedure Rule 14.1.16 Councillor Mahbub Alam be not further

heard” due to misconduct. The procedural motion was put to the vote and was

agreed.

 

 

Motions 12.1, 12.2 and 12.4 to 12.11 were not debated due to lack of time.