No concessions

14 Aug

Freedom of Information request posted on What Do They Know:

I understand that you provide a discount to concessionary groups at leisure centres. I attended East Ham leisure centre recently to register my children and myself for swimming lessons and other activities. I brought necessary proofs but was refused concessionary payments facilities as your staffs confirmed that asylum seekers or asylum support are not included on their system.

Therefore I urgently request you to review your scheme and add extra concessionary groups such as asylum seekers as you actually do for students and those who receive council tax benefits. You are aware that asylum support is offered by the Home Office and as an asylum seeker and his family supported by NASS, we are entitled to free services within the borough. In this particular case, I am not asking you for free services but merely requesting you to add this particular group of applicants in your system to avoid future complications in this respect.

I will be thankful if you could provide me your policy in this respect as I have checked other boroughs which do give concessionary payments to asylum seekers supported by NASS under Section 4 or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I am concerned to note that Newham council do not have this in place.

Contrary to the myths peddled by the popular press, life is pretty tough for asylum seekers while their cases are being processed. If this is the result of a deliberate policy decision by the council it is appallingly mean-spirited and petty. If not, it’s something that can – and should – be put right quickly.

Paranoid

13 Aug

Unmesh shopping

Making sure no-one’s listening in

The mayor is famously intolerant of dissent, to the point of paranoia, and it seems that this has now infected those around him.

At the end of a budget briefing session last night at Newham Dockside Unmesh Desai decided to hold a briefing of his own, not on council business but on his campaign to be the Labour candidate for City & East in next year’s London elections.

He asked council officers to leave and then noticed a 17-year old ‘A’ level student who had been shadowing a councillor for the day, getting an insight into how local government works. He insisted she leave as well.

He then said he didn’t want any non-supporters in the room. So three councillors walked out, along with the bemused teenager.

Not exactly a great introduction to local politics, but a perfect illustration of how Newham Labour party works.

Not just the paranoia but the use of council property for party business. The “Desai 4 City & East” campaign should be getting a bill for the room, although history suggests they won’t.

Landlord news

12 Aug

Chowdhury & Noor

Two bits of good news for Newham’s landlord councillors.

Beckon lead councillor Ayesha Chowdhury has added yet another property to her extensive buy-to-let portfolio. The acquisition of 58 Alma Street, London E15 1QA means she now owns 19 homes in the borough.

And the planning case against Plaistow South councillor Ahmed Noor has been closed. He complied with the terms of the enforcement notice served on him at the end of April.

It remains to be seen if further action will be taken against him for operating a private rented property without a licence.

Old jokes home

12 Aug

Sponger caption

One has an ill-defined job, lavishly funded at taxpayers’ expense. The other is the Duke of Edinburgh.

Ultra vires

11 Aug

The Local Government Association has weighed in on the subject of pensions for elected councillors.

It has obtained legal advice to clarify whether a council can make contributions to an alternative pension for its elected members following the changes brought about in April 2014 by the last government that specifically excluded them from the existing local government scheme.

In essence, the advice says they can’t (my emphasis added):

Under the Pensions Act 2008, we consider that councillors generally would be excluded from the definition of those entitled to receive pensions, as they are office holders. They are not workers as they do not have a contract of employment nor any other contract by which they undertake to do work or perform services personally for another party to the contract. This means that Councils cannot rely on the general power of competence under the Localism Act 2011 but must rather have a specific power in order to make such a payment…

… The general power of competence under S1 Localism Act 2011 does not permit a Council to do anything which it was specifically prohibited from doing prior to the Act, or which has been specifically prohibited after the legislation was passed. The changes to the pensions legislation were explicit and postdate the Act.

If Councils do chose to make such payments it is likely that they will be acting in a way which is ultra vires.

Councillor John Gray has contacted Newham’s monitoring officer to express his concern about this. He has also requested to see the internal legal advice provided to the mayor and shared with cabinet prior to their deciding to introduce the new scheme.  As he notes on his blog, this has been refused.

Given that Cllr Gray is a member of the Investment and Accounts Committee, which “looks in detail at how the Council’s superannuation (pension) funds are managed,” this is outrageous. Three other members of the committee are full-time councillors who will potentially benefit from the scheme: Forhad Hussain, Andrew Baikie and deputy mayor Lester Hudson. In any future discussion about executive member pensions they will have the advantage of having seen the advice which is being denied to their backbench colleagues. The chances of an informed debate are slim.

But we know from experience what will happen next. 

In the face of legal advice he doesn’t like Sir Robin will simply commission more. At our expense, obviously.

If this turns into a fight with central government he will lawyer up and the bills will run into tens of thousands – if not hundreds of thousands – of pounds They may end up being more than the cost of the pension scheme itself.

So for local taxpayers it’s ‘heads they win; tails we lose.’

Snouts in the trough – 2015 edition

27 Jul

Newham has published its annual report on the allowances paid to councillors in the previous financial year – April 2014 to March 2015.

The report lists all councillors who served in the financial year 2014-15 and as this was an election year it includes those who left office in May 2014, as well as those who were re-elected and those joining council for the first time.

It’s further complicated by Alec Kellaway dying shortly after the election and his being replaced by Tonii Wilson in a by-election a few months later. And by Charlene McLean being removed from office for non-attendance in March. She re-elected in May 2015.

Altogether 81 different people served as elected members in the period covered. Between them they claimed a total of £1,234,457 in allowances. Of that, £638,712 was paid as basic allowances, £592,869 as ‘special responsibility allowances’ (including the whole of the mayor’s £81,029 allowance) and £2,876 in other allowances (travel, childcare, phone etc.).

Though you wouldn’t know any of this by reading the report. It doesn’t provide totals for individual members or overall.

As ever – and quite deliberately – it has used a format that makes it unnecessarily awkward for anyone to work with. Would it really kill them to give us an Excel or .csv file?

So who gets the most? Well obviously that’s the Dear Leader. But look at the top ten earners among councillors:

Name Basic £ SRA £ Other £ Total £
R WALES 0 81,029 0 81,029
L HUDSON 10,734 36,977 0 47,711
R CRAWFORD 10,734 34,012 240 44,986
I CORBETT 10,734 34,012 0 44,746
F HUSSAIN 10,734 32,977 184 43,895
C FURNESS 10,734 32,977 100 43,811
E ROBINSON 10,734 32,977 100 43,811
A BAIKIE 10,734 32,977 0 43,711
U DESAI 10,734 32,977 0 43,711
K CLARK 9,118 27,458 180 36,756
A McALMONT 10,734 24,542 750 36,026

All but one are men. The only exception is Ellie Robinson. Yet again.

Aside from Anthony McAlmont, who is the ‘independent’ chair of Overview and Scrutiny, all those listed above are full-time councillors with ‘special responsibilities’ that require them to work 5 days a week on council business. Including Sir Robin that’s 10 full-time politicians we’re paying for. If the mayor is serious about finding £50 million in cuts I can think of one easy ways to make savings!

Don’t feel too sorry for Ken Clark: his earnings are suppressed by the fact he was only elected in May 2014 and therefore has seven weeks’ less pay to report than his peers.

For those of a nostalgic bent, here are the previous editions of ‘snout in the trough’:

  • 2011 edition – “Newham Councillors Paid More Than £1.2 million in Allowances”
  • 2012 edition – “Snouts in the trough – again”
  • 2013 edition – “Snouts in the trough – 2013 edition”
  • 2014 edition – “Money (that’s what I want)”

Kerching!

24 Jul

  
Well, that didn’t take long.

Less than 24 hours after Overview and Scrutiny voted to reject the mayor’s decision to set up a pension scheme for himself and his chums, and to ask him reconsider, he’s announced he’s going ahead anyway.

Even by his low standards this is shameless and self-serving.

And, at a time when residents face £50 million a year in cuts to vital public services, his contempt for us couldn’t be more obvious.

Picture credit: @StopCityAirport

The geezer is underpaid

23 Jul

Sir robin wales labour hand up for more money

Hands up if you think you’re underpaid on £81,000 a year (photo: WorldSkills)

by Iain Aitch

‘The geezer is underpaid’ is not a phrase you expect to hear from the Deputy Mayor of a Labour council when talking about his boss. You expect it even less when his boss, Newham Mayor Sir Robin Wales, draws allowances of £81,029 per-annum and is asking Council Tax-payers where £50m of cuts should be made. 

Yet these are the words that came from the mouth of Councillor Lester Hudson at Wednesday evening’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) at East Ham Town Hall. Hudson said he was speaking on behalf of the Mayor as he attempted to justify how and why Wales should get a £10,858 pay rise, in the shape of a pension paid for solely by Newham residents. 

Once tax breaks were taken into account this would leave the Mayor with a council tax-funded income of £96,231. This is more than four-times the mean Newham salary that other councillors reported to the meeting. Hudson was adamant that Wales, full-timers and those who receive Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA) should receive a hefty 13.4% pension contribution from residents. The contribution from Wales and councillors? Zero. 

The meeting was discussing these pensions because the issue had been called in to the OSC by councillors concerned at just how this £600,000 spend over three years would make them look. Councillors Dianne Walls, Seyi Akiwowo and Kay Scoresby asked how this would appear to residents on the doorstep come election time, but Councillors Hudson, McAlmont, Vaughan and Noor argued that MPs get a generous pension, so why shouldn’t they? Vaughan asserted that they were as good as MPs; ironically, Noor decided they were better, even though it appeared that he did not know quite how pensions worked. 

Several members struggled with the concept that they were paid allowances for duties rather than actually being employees of Newham Council. Some had to be reminded more than once. They still remained puzzled. Hudson didn’t help by constantly referring to being an employee, even when he was regaling the meeting with tales of his Cambridge degree, his past as an accountant and how he could earn more elsewhere were it not for his selfless dedication to public service.

If there was a The Thick of It moment during the OSC it was when the big white book of meeting rules was pulled out and dusted off. Newham’s council meetings and committees are not places where dissent is a common occurrence and suddenly there was some. Computer says no. 

The chair, Councillor Anthony McAlmont, didn’t know quite what to do. The rule book was consulted. But it was clear there was more than a simple problem of pensions or procedure at play. The room was divided along gender lines, with Councillors Rokhsana Fiaz and Susan Masters joining the dissent. Female councillors spoke about the impact of austerity, the impact on residents and the probable illegality of the scheme being proposed. Male councillors spoke about how selfless they were and how much they were worth to the public. 

In tense exchanges, issues of childcare, meeting times and parental leave were raised by the women. Councillor Hudson expressed an opinion that those issues had already been discussed at Labour Group. Councillor Akiwowo face-palmed at this point. Fiaz rolled her eyes. Walls pointed out that no such discussion had occurred. Akiwowo came out fighting and impressed mightily. She had already rubbished the idea that huge pensions would attract a younger, more diverse set of councillors. “I’m not 55 and I am pretty diverse,” she said. But the point was lost on the old guard in the chamber. Hudson, unable to vote, left the room stating that he hoped ‘common sense would prevail’ to yet more eye-rolling, astonishment and opprobrium. 

At the meeting’s conclusion, all five women voted to recommend that the Mayor reconsider the pension scheme. All three men voted to say all was fine and dandy and when do the payments start?

The final decision as to whether to spend the £600,000 on pensions now rests with the Mayor. At a time when community centres are being closed, childcare facilities cut and repairs put off it would surely be embarrassing, even for this Mayor, to rub Newham residents’ faces in it, wouldn’t it? Let us see. 

Whatever the decision, it does now seem that the split within Newham Labour’s ranks is becoming visible. It was seemingly bubbling under even before the ink was dry on the ballot papers at the last council election, but now it is out in the open. We may finally have an opposition sitting in the council chamber, only not where anyone would have expected to find them, least of all Sir Robin. 

Iain Aitch is an author and journalist who lives in Newham. He has written for the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Times and Financial Times.

 

Number crunching

20 Jul

The council is shortly going to consult residents on the £50 million of savings it is going to have to make as the result of central government funding cuts.

Here are a few numbers to put that into context:

  • £563.5 million – amount borrowed in so-called ‘lender option, borrower option’ (LOBO) loans
  • £37.2 million – ‘cost of capital financing’ (i.e. interest on loans, including LOBOs) in 2014/15 (budget)
  • £111 million – cost of buying and refurbishing Newham Dockside as the council’s new HQ
  • £40 million – amount ‘loaned’ to help convert the Olympic stadium for use by multi-millionaire-owned West Ham United
  • £5 million – additional amount to be invested in retail & merchandising ‘opportunities’ in the Olympic Park 
  • £4.7 million – amount lost on the council’s ‘investment’ in the short-lived London Pleasure Gardens
  • £7.1 million – estimated loss of rental income due to voids on Carpenters Estate up to 31st March 2014
  • £2.1 million – estimated loss of council tax due to voids on Carpenters Estate up to 31st March 2014
  • £7 million – amount Newham had invested in Icelandic banks when they crashed in 2008 (and only recently recovered)
  • £1.2 million – annual allowances paid to the mayor and councillors
  • £0.6 million – estimated annual cost of the Newham Mag

Natural order

17 Jul

Douglas Adams

Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Television.

The Internet.

Directly-elected executive mayors.

Yep. Douglas Adams nailed it.