12.4 Motion regarding Operation Lynemouth

 

Mayor John Biggs moved and Councillor Sirajul Islam seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.

 

Councillor Peter Golds moved and Councillor Andrew Wood seconded the following friendly amendment to the motion:

 

Insert as Item 2 after this Council notes;

 

The report contains a number of significant observations including;

 

From Page 12

 

“It would appear that the original MPS investigation failed to secure pivotal evidence which could have led to further enquiries. Operation Lynemouth has done so and is seeking early advice from the CPS as to whether the evidence provides realistic opportunities for investigation and prosecution.”

   

From Page 14

 

“The MPS’s fraud squad considered ten matters during the original investigation, including allegations of fraud, bribery, perjury and tax evasion, but did not make any arrests. Operation Lynemouth has already identified potential evidential opportunities, although there is still much work to be done.”

 

Insert as Item 4 after this Council resolves;

 

Item 4

 

That the residents of the borough will look to the police, electoral officials, political parties, their candidates and supporters to ensure that the elections to be held in 2018 are free, fair and untainted by the malpractice which so damaged the reputation of this borough in 2014.

 

Renumber Item 4 as Item 5

 

Mayor John Biggs and Councillor Sirajul Islam accepted the amendment and altered their motion accordingly.

 

Councillor Oliur Rahman attempted to move a further amendment to this motion. However the Council’s Monitoring Officer advised the Speaker that the content of the amendment was out of order so it should not be accepted.

 

Following debate, the motion as amended was put to the vote and was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes:

 

1.            That Operation Lynemouth has published its second interim report, which is investigating ‘any alleged criminal or electoral wrongdoing… committed, counselled or procured by a senior figure (or senior figures) within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ between 25 October 2010 and 23 April 2015.

 

 

2.            The report contains a number of significant observations including;

 

From Page 12

 

“It would appear that the original MPS investigation failed to secure pivotal evidence which could have led to further enquiries. Operation Lynemouth has done so and is seeking early advice from the CPS as to whether the evidence provides realistic opportunities for investigation and prosecution.”

   

From Page 14

 

“The MPS’s fraud squad considered ten matters during the original investigation, including allegations of fraud, bribery, perjury and tax evasion, but did not make any arrests. Operation Lynemouth has already identified potential evidential opportunities, although there is still much work to be done.”

 

This Council believes that:

 

1.            Although, as was stated in the election Court judgement ‘the election of all THF (Tower Hamlets First) Councillors must be taken to have been achieved with the benefit of the corrupt and illegal practices’, all councillors in Tower Hamlets have a legal and moral duty to support the police investigation into the wrongdoing of the past;

 

2.            While many councillors who were elected as part of Tower Hamlets First still serve on the Council in the Tower Hamlets Independent Group and the People’s Alliance of Tower Hamlets, including potentially two Mayoral Election candidates, and that they remain in denial about the corrupt regime which they were a part of, all sitting councillors and the Mayor have a personal responsibility to address the failures and criminality of the Lutfur Rahman administration and help the borough move forward. We note with sadness that while a majority accept this responsibility a sizeable minority clearly do not.

 

This Council resolves:

 

1.            To welcome and fully support the HMIC investigation into alleged criminal offences arising from the 2014 mayoral election;

 

2.            That every councillor should cooperate fully with any police investigation into criminality, including coming clean about any of their own actions and proactively offering any evidence they may have of wrongdoing;

 

3.            To work to ensure the highest possible standards in the coming election and consign the electoral fraud of the previous administration to the past;

 

4.            That the residents of the borough will look to the police, electoral officials, political parties, their candidates and supporters to ensure that the elections to be held in 2018 are free, fair and untainted by the malpractice which so damaged the reputation of this borough in 2014.

 

5.            To condemn in the strongest possible terms the illegality of the former mayor.

 

12.8    Motion regarding the future of Old Ford Housing Association

 

Councillor Marc Francis moved and Mayor John Biggs seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.

 

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes:

 

1.            Old Ford Housing Association (OFHA) was established in 1998 as the successor body to Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust (HAT);

 

2.            OFHA was a subsidiary of Circle 33 Housing Trust for financing purposes, but was accountable to its own Board of tenants, leaseholders and independent members;

 

3.            In 2005, Circle 33 merged with Anglia Housing to form Circle Anglia Ltd, and that other associations joined later to form Circle Housing Group;

 

4.            In July 2007, LBTH transferred the “Parkside” council estates to OFHA with the promise to refurbish individual flats and the estates within five years;

 

5.          In 2015, following complaints from LB Islington and LBTH about the performance of its repairs service, the Social Housing Regulator found evidence of “serious detriment” to tenants and downgraded Circle Housing Group, requiring an action plan to improve governance;

 

6.          In response, Circle put forward an “action plan”, which involved closing down its subsidiaries, including Old Ford HA, and centralising services, moving most Bow-based staff to a new call-centre in Kent;

 

7.          In summer 2016, despite clear evidence of a continuing deterioration in services, including tenants being left without heating for weeks on end, the Regulator upgraded Circle again;

 

8.          Within days, Circle announced its intention to merge with Affinity Sutton “to create the largest housing association in Western Europe”;

 

9.          In response to Circle’s “consultation”, more than 1,000 residents signed a petition opposing the proposed closure of Old Ford, which led to Old Ford’s Board declining to agree to Circle’s proposal;

 

10.         Following a Parliamentary debate initiated by Rushanara Ali MP, the Regulator finally began an investigation, which confirmed “serious detriment” had again been caused to tenants and resulted in the newly-merged Circle / Affinity Sutton  being downgraded again in December 2016;

 

11.        The former Chief Executive and Chair of Circle have both left the new organisation - Clarion Housing Group - and it is now run by former Affinity Sutton staff;

 

12.       While Clarion’s new Management Team has made some improvement in services, it is continuing with Circle’s plan to close subsidiaries and centralise services;

 

13.       Clarion has asked Old Ford’s Board to consult residents again on closing Old Ford;

 

14.         At least two other local community-based housing associations have expressed an interest in coming together with Old Ford.

 

This Council believes:

 

1.            The ex-HAT and “Parkside” estates in Bow were transferred to Old Ford on the basis that it would be a “community-based housing association”, and that residents voted in favour of the transfers from LBTH on that basis;

 

2.            As the former landlord, Tower Hamlets Council has a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that any substantive changes to the governance arrangements at Old Ford are only made with the consent of residents;

 

This Council resolves: 

 

1.            To oppose any attempt by Clarion Housing Group to close Old Ford without the formal consent of residents;

 

2.            To support the Mayor and Cabinet in opposing these plans publicly, including by raising objections to the Housing Minister and Social Housing Regulator, and by legal means if necessary;

 

3.            To support the Mayor and Cabinet in facilitating direct discussions between Old Ford’s Board and those other community-based housing associations that have expressed an interest in combining with Old Ford.

 

 

12.15 Motion regarding Westferry Printworks Secondary School

 

CouncillorDave Chesterton moved and Candida Ronald seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.

 

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The Council notes:

1.              The Council’s Local Plan adopted in April 2013 identifies the site of the former Printworks on Westferry Road as a priority location for a new secondary school on the Isle of Dogs.

2.              A new 1,200 place secondary school on this site was granted planning consent in May 2016. When this opens this will be the first new second secondary school on the Isle of Dogs since George Green’s School opened in 1975, more than 40 years ago;

3.              Currently there is a surplus of secondary school places on the Isle of Dogs (just over 7% across all year groups). Current projected demand for secondary school places indicates that additional provision will not be required until the start of the school year 2021/22;

4.              The “free school presumption” is the process Local Authorities have to follow where they intend to open a new school. It is set out in section 6(A) of the Education & Inspections Act 2006 which provides that where a Local Authority believes that a new school needs to be established in their area, they must seek proposals for the establishment of an Academy or Free School;

5.              However, the guidance clearly states (para 17) that ‘In considering the need for a new school, local authorities should factor in any other free school projects that the department has approved and are due to open;” 

6.              The Secretary of State has made it clear that she considers Canary Wharf College to be an appropriate provider as it is already open as a school and includes secondary provision from September 2016;

7.              Even where the Council decides to run a competition, the Secretary of State is the ultimate decision maker and may decide to appoint a sponsor other than that recommended to her by a local authority following competition. The guidance states: “The Secretary of State reserves the right to agree a sponsor of her own choice (from the list of approved sponsors) on the basis that she may have further evidence about a proposer, or proposers, which means that none of those put forward is suitable.” In this instance it seems likely she may decide to appoint Canary Wharf College despite other expressions of interest submitted, making the process abortive for the Council and other schools who bid;

8.              If the Council opts to run a competition, the Council could bear costs of up to £30million, in addition to the costs of running the free school competition. The costs would remain the responsibility of the Council regardless of the Secretary of State’s decision on who the provider will be;

9.              If the school goes ahead as a central free school determined by the Department for Education, and the Council does not run a competition, the capital costs and the pre and post-opening costs for the school would be borne by the Department for Education;

This council also believes:

10.           That the previous Regional Schools Commissioner indicated that, by virtue of the fact Canary Wharf College has already been approved by the Secretary of State to open a secondary school on the Isle of Dogs, it would be fair to assume the Government intends to approve Canary Wharf College despite any recommendation process.

 The Council Believes;

1.              There is no need to rush to select an operator for the Westferry Printworks Secondary School, this secondary school will not be required until September 2021;

2.              The process by which an operator for this new school is selected should be by open competition, completely transparent and the views of parents placed at the centre of the selection process;

3.              Potential operators must be able to evidence outstanding success in:

a.    High educational attainment for children from diverse backgrounds;

b.    Community cohesion and inclusiveness;

c.    Actively reaching out to children from poor families;

d.    Actively reaching out to children of parents from all faiths;

e.    Positively encouraging children with special needs.

4.              Ideologically motivated interference by the Secretary of State in this selection process is unacceptable;

5.              That by making the Council liable for what could cost £30m, without giving them the power to decide on who will run the school is entirely wrong and flies in the face of parents’ wishes and local democracy;

The Council Resolves to:

1.              Ask the Mayor to continue to stand up for the rights of local parents, to have their voices heard and to write to the Secretary of State urging her to properly consider and be guided by local opinion before making any decision on this site;

2.              Ask the Mayor to urge the Secretary of State and Regional Schools Commissioner not to undermine local decision-making and accountability, and to be open about their intentions relating to the Westferry Printworks Secondary School and to make this process fully open by waiving in advance of any local competition, the requirement for council to fund as much as £30m costs should the recommendation of such a competition not be approved by the Secretary of State;

3.              Call on Conservative Councillors to add their voices to local concerns and make representations to the Department for Education to enable a genuine free school competition where the decision is not pre-determined and which does not cost the council millions even if the local process is then overturned by Government;

4.              Refer the petition signed by local people to the Secretary of State and Regional Schools Commissioner.

Motions 12.1, 12.3, 12.5-12.7,12.9- 12.14 and 12.16-12. 21 were not debated due to lack of time.