The latest edition of East End Life is most interesting for what’s not in it. While on p6 there’s a report on the latest round of cash handouts to various community groups (more of that in another post), there’s nothing about another tax-funded vote buying exercise which was announced on the same day last week.
I’ve no idea why Mayor Lutfur or his legion of highly paid “communications” advisers don’t make more of the edicts known as “mayoral executive decisions”; maybe he wants to keep them quiet.
But last Thursday, two months later than planned, he slipped out via this section on the council website his latest re-election campaign move.
I first wrote about his “Community Faith Building Scheme” here last November when Lutfur’s cabinet agreed a budget for a £2million programme. His cabinet then added a further £1million to this pot in February. The programme is being funded from supposedly precious council reserves (this in a period of cuts, remember) to “offer assistance to faith communities to repair, adapt and improve buildings in Tower Hamlets in which faith-based activities occur”.
The money is being doled out in three tranches and three types of grant were available. Type A had an initial cap of £75k per application for actual repair and revamp work; Type B was for more substantial works with a cap of £300k; and Type C had a cap of £10k to help with professional fees such as architectural advice needed for Types A and B.
According to the council’s website earlier this year, 42 bids totalling £2,995,880 had been made. So Lutfur and the officer in charge of the project, the regeneration director Aman Dalvi (who some senior councillors have said is too close to the Mayor), decided to reduce the cap on Type A bids to £25,000 so more groups would get something.
So all 42 applications have been at least partially successful and a total of £595,000 of our money has been handed out.
Here’s a table that summarises the breakdown by faith. It also shows the 2011 Census results for people who identified themselves by faith. The council said it would use this as a key driver of how it awarded the grants. The Equality Impact statement in Appendix 5 of this document says: “The figures show that the two faiths with the most people according to the 2011 Census (Muslim and Christian) have submitted the most applications, requested the most funding and have been recommended the most funding.
The breakdown by faith is:
So who’s won?
Well, the East London Mosque, which is sitting on a cash pile a mile high (its latest accounts show it had £2.7million in its account last year), has been awarded £10,000 to install a new sliding glass door, repaint the dome and minaret, and to clean and polish the signage. You’d have thought it would have been a little more charitable and let a smaller outfit take the money.
A few churches have also been successful: the Rev Alan Green, of the Tower Hamlets Inter Faith Forum, will be chuffed that £25k has been given to refurbish his community centre at St John on Bethnal Green.
And the borough’s two main synagogues – the East London Central Synagogue in Nelson Street, which is chaired by Leon Silver of the Inter Faith Forum, and Congregation of Jacob Synagogue in Commercial Road – have got £25k between them.
The Gudwara Sikh temple in Harley Grove, Bow, which re-opened last week after being destroyed by an arson attack in 2009, gets £15k for, among other things, solar panels.
And there are also a few which have been awarded £10k to cover the professional fees needed to explore further substantial works. These include the tiny Bow Muslim Cultural Centre in Roman Road. I wonder what plans they have.
The full list is in the documents below. A grand total of £150,000 has been set aside by the council to “project manage” this programme. Presumably, this will include ensuring the money is spent as intended.
As for the rights and wrongs of earmarking public cash for religious buildings and activities…well, the council says it’s allowed to. It’s a direct consequence of the Localism Act.
The National Secular Society is dead against it. They commented here last November
The Mayor says he is responding to a community demand. I said last November that if this money is used to improve community facilities that are open to all, ie inclusive, then it’s not a bad thing.
But that’s a big if. Many of these places ‘ain’t exactly inclusive.
As will be shown at a later date.
Here are the winners:
Trial by Jeory 
Well well well. The Muslims have taken twice as much as the census suggests they should have.
You did say “Vote Buying”. Spot on Ted. Although why you need to buy votes from non-existent people is a bit of a mystery to me.
Tim.
Tim, a interesting analysis that you have made, shows what a Islamaphobe you are.
Yes, ‘Muslims have taken twice as much as the census suggests they should have.’ But what you failed to do is point how much more the other communities are getting: Sikhs & Jews got 8 and half times more, Hindus got nearly 4 and half times more and Buddhists got twice as more.
Breaking News: Muslim Mayor gives proportionally more money to Jews & Sikhs than Muslims.
Go and crawl from the rat hole you emerged from.
I think it is wrong for the Mayor to give public funding to religious groups ‘full stop’.
Taj,
Point me at the Islamophobia in my message and I’l agree to being Islamophobic. Factual observations do not equate to prejudice, although I note how quick you are to point the finger when you see facts you don’t like. Makes me wonder who is the prejudiced one here – those who are least assured of their own persuasions are always the first to condemn others for theirs.
As Ted said, “Drop the Islamophobia nonsense”. And grow up.
Tim.
Taj – and Christians got less than half and all the people who don’t want anything to do with religion had to pay for this rot. Religion and politics don’t (and shouldn’t) mix. I ask again – why should I pay for the private observances of others??? I want to opt out!
This is disgusting and we expect it from the Mayor and his administration. The real test is whether Tower Hamlets Labour Party will condem the payments and make a public undertaking to either claw the money back or stop the programe.
Can they do that? As in, claw the money back? Or are they simply limited to making a lot of noise and not a lot else?
I only have limited experience of local government but usually there are a million hoops to jump through before organisations can get their hands on that sort of money so i doubt they’ll have it all before the next election. In the meantime couldn’t they challenge the payments on equality grounds? How can you give public money to religious organisations which are inherently sexist and practice segregation?
In the very least local political parties ought to be pointing out that this is a flagrant waste of rate payers money. Is the Labour Party doing that? They normally have a ‘press release’ on the most obscure nonsense. Did they release one on this issue ? I doubt it.
I’ve asked the Labour party’s LBTH press officer for a comment by tomorrow.
Not even had an acknowledgement yet.
I can’t see anything wrong with this scheme. It is great that a local authority recognises the limited pots of money available to improve places of worship, and has stepped in to fill the void. The UK is not a constitutionally secular state and there are no plans I am aware of to make it such.
Using the census is disingenuous – it is surely more accurate to look at the numbers of worshippers regularly attending for services / prayers. The fact that Mosques are full on Friday afternoons while Christian churches even at great Feasts like Christmas are far from full speaks volumes. As such a more honest appraisal of how this fund has been spent would conclude it has been fairly apportioned based on numbers of residents benefitting.
Finally, that the historic Sikh temple and important Hindu centre in Bow have received important grants demonstrates this has been to my mind a very inclusive funding round.
If so many attend the mosques then surely they can crowdsource the money themselves! The minority churches that are heritage buildings and poorly attended should get more 🙂
So if it’s all so fair what have the atheists got?
That’s an interesting question. Atheists aren’t a faith group, by definition, and therefore have no faith buildings to attract a grant.
Hmmm. Interesting conundrum.
Tim.
Nigel, I see EVERYTHING wrong with this scheme. It’s not local authority money, it’s my money (and the money of fellow tax payers). I pay my council tax to fund local services, not to repair churches and mosques.
So helping local places of worship with local funds is wrong? Have we really become such a godless borough ? That to my mind is what us wrong.
I always thought that to get a grant you had to prove you didn’t have the funds already – so what’s going on. VOTE BUYING!!!
Nigel is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the massive historical churhces attract 10-15 people on a sunday congregation and yet a small mosques attracts 100s of people on a Friday and this is a FACT. However, that should no way be the basis for allocation of the funding but it should be based on merit of the application and the need. A key reason why many mosques may have been successful is because of the need to upgrade the facilities many of which are operating from shop fronts, porter cabin and desperately need basic upgrades. As for not being accessible those large enough ie East London Mosque allow access to other users but a small porter cabin or shop front which can’t even cater for the congregation can’t allow other users and that would be the same for any faith. A really important point is that 80% of people in our borough say they have a religious belief and we should celebrate that not see it as something bad. There are many commentators here who want us to celebrate LGBT, Gender, Age, Race etc but not religion. We can fund the other groups but not faith groups and they say there are not problems with Faith Hate Crime in the borough. These kind of articles by Ted and his friend Gilligan and others do only one thing that is increase Islamaphobia and Faith Hate Crime. Why can’t you write policy related articles rather than constantly divisive ones which only creates division rather than bring people together?
Should s106 money be given to a mosque, or a church or synagogue? Oh, and drop the Islamaphobia nonsense.
No.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 106 contributions (de facto ‘bribes’ for planning permission not normally given) should never be given to any religious organisation. That would be unlawful and unfair discrimination for those who choose to believe in a non-existant ‘God’. Nothing for the sane who know the never seen ‘God’ does not exist.
I believe I am an Alien space monster, give me some s.106 cash for my place of worship …… Mac Donalds !
Utter bonkers as usual but it is Tower Hamlets.
Curious Cat.
Ted, on the way home from work today, I was treated with the newest addition to our dear leaders pre-election publicity (propaganda) campaign. He has his picture and housing “commitments” plastered on the first stage of the Blackwall Reach development. It is all rather sickening. In terms of the faith building fund – have a fate, charity walk, climb a mountain, have a cake sale or a weekly collection! I do not pay my tax so it can be handed to spruce up “faith buildings”, pay for the LR PR machine, or his Merc. I bet you a taxpayers pound, that his picture will have to appear on each of these projects funded by me and you!
This policy is clearly designed to transfer money from all council tax payers to the Muslim community in order to win votes for Lutfur. The small amounts of money for other religions is simply a token gesture. What about the 34.5% who have no stated religion. Why should their money be appropriated in this way?
As for John Barnes’ point about celebrating other forms of diversity – I have no recollection of £600k of council taxpayers’ money being given to the other groups he mentioned.
Perhaps people should declare their religion on their council tax form and get a 25% discount for not having one
Lutfur Rahman : ‘the day I have to make cuts, it’ll break me’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/22/tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman
The council is going to have to make huge cuts in the next spending round so why are we spending money like this? To Lutfur’s credit he’s introduced an alternative to EMA why not expand that programe with this money? Why not see if you can do something for pensioners ? It’s just outrageous. Cut’s will break him and he’s wasting money like this?
My ex is a Buddhist and took me to a few sessions at the London Buddhist center in Bethnal Green. The place is stuffed full of city people and we’re giving them 12k? I’m just lost for words.
@Ted could you please tweet this article and include THLP, John Biggs and the tories etc? So the question is in the public domain maybe they’ll feel obliged to answer you then.
When did the Dorset Library become a community faith building?
I live up north and there are eight mosques in my particular town. Up till now none of these have received any public tax-payer money (they’ve all been privately financed by voluntary donations from the Muslim community) which is EXACTLY as it should be. These mosques get plenty of cash from the thousands of observant Muslims here who are willing to contribute. It’s a perfectly good system, it’s worked fine for decades, and I’m not too impressed that this Localism Act is set to change all that. Incidentally, I’m not sure whether the religious leaders where I live have realised the full implications of the Act, so may not have started getting their bids in. But surely it’s only a matter of time, right?
[…] Lutfur’s decision to commit £3million of council money to paint domes, polish signs and refurbish faith-based community centres has caused a bit of a stink within the Labour […]
“the East London Mosque, which is sitting on a cash pile a mile high (its latest accounts show it had £2.7million in its account last year), has been awarded £10,000 to install a new sliding glass door, repaint the dome and minaret, and to clean and polish the signage” – Shame on ELM for taking this money from the taxpayer for a new door, painting and to polish signage! Perhaps a food bank – perhaps this money could be spent on helping people of all background based on need – one tower hamlets my left foot!
I have said it before – I do not work hard to pay for a cash rich organisation to get a spruce up when so many people are suffering!! I love this place and its people! I despise the politicians who are inward looking and serve a short term agenda – this kind of policy could drive people apart as spending OUR money in this way seems so wrong!