Cllr Oli Rahman manning a PCS picket line in Stratford today
The below piece is on the Express website here.
THE Deputy Mayor of the controversial east London borough of Tower Hamlets was yesterday marched from his civil service workplace after concerns about his political activities.
A security guard was ordered to ban Councillor Oliur Rahman from entering the Job Centre Plus office in Stratford, east London, where he works as a benefits adviser.
His bosses at the Department for Work and Pensions said he could no longer perform the role, one he has had for 14 years, due to hypothetical concerns about political neutrality.
They claimed his high profile role in Tower Hamlets politics meant he was more likely to be recognised by people he dealt with in the job centre, even though he works in the neighbouring borough of Newham.
The DWP argued Mr Rahman was at risk of being accused of political bias in his day job.
It said this risk had increased following his appointment as deputy to Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman, who is currently the subject of Government and national media attention.
Mr Rahman’s bosses said they were acting on the direct advice of the Cabinet Office, which yesterday confirmed it supported their decision.
They said he was being transferred to a non-frontline role away from jobseekers at another office in Stratford.
Their stance and the decision to call in a security guard triggered a blazing row at the Job Centre yesterday.
It caused Mr Rahman, who is also an official at the PCS union, so much stress that he vomited and hyperventilated.
His bosses were so concerned they called an ambulance.
Paramedics treated the councillor but he declined to go to hospital.
PCS officials believe the DWP is “politically targeting” Mr Rahman.
He was today manning a picket line at the Job Centre Plus in a campaign against Government cuts.
Yesterday’s events were the culmination of a long-running dispute.
He has worked for the DWP for 14 years and has been a councillor since 2004.
Until 2010, he worked at the Poplar Job Centre in Tower Hamlets but he was then moved to Stratford after a complaint from an opposition party which claimed he could be trying to exploit his job for political purposes.
He has served in Lutfur Rahman’s cabinet since October 2010.
It is understood no complaints have been received about his dual role in that time.
However, DWP became increasingly worried.
According to Mr Rahman’s supporters, his bosses tried to transfer him out of London altogether.
Mr Rahman opposed the proposal and wrote to the Civil Service Appeal Board.
On October 28 last year, the board ruled in Mr Rahman’s favour.
It told the DWP that were he to be re-elected as a councillor in May 2014, he should be allowed to stay in his frontline role in Stratford.
After his re-election as a Tower Hamlets First party in May, his boss Lutfur Rahman made him his deputy.
The DWP believes his “elevated role” as deputy mayor of a borough receiving so much attention nationally has created a tipping point.
His bosses sought renewed guidance from the Cabinet Office, which has now told the DWP it can overrule the Civil Service Appeal Board decision.
When Mr Rahman objected to the proposed back office transfer earlier this month, the DWP suspended him–a decision it rescinded just days later following advice from HR professionals.
However, the department’s bosses continued to insist he move to the new role.
Mr Rahman is now understood to be consulting lawyers.
His friends also point out that the national attention on Tower Hamlets Council is not of his making.
They say it is largely due to a decision by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, who ordered Government inspectors to examine the borough’s finances last April.
In a statement, Marjorie Browne of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said: “For the best part of four years Mr Rahman feels he has been subjected a series of targeted behaviour from the senior management of the Job Centre Plus (JCP) without any foundation or complaint from any clients.
“He feels politically targeted for simply being a councillor and politically active within Tower Hamlets.
“The fact that senior management from the JCP are going against their own Civil Service Appeal Board’s decision says everything one needs to know about this case.”
A DWP spokesman said: “Every day our Job Centre Plus staff are successfully helping people into work.
“It’s important that they remain politically neutral, which is why we can’t have elected politicians in frontline roles.”
A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said it “supported” the DWP decision and added: “The Civil Service Code requires all civil servants to act with political impartiality, and to comply with any restrictions laid down on their political activities in line with the Political Activity Rules.”
Mr Rahman said he was unable to comment.
Trial by Jeory 
Interesting.
Once again it exposes the Labour Way of having political activists in Job Centres. Some of those activists give the vast amounts of personal data, relating to non-Labour supporting activists, easily accessible to DWP staff, to their local Labour Party contacts for political use (attacking Labour’s opponents).
I am NOT stating Mr Rahman has ever done this. But it is a normal Labour Party practice.
There is little fundamental difference between Labour’s Son of Labour/THF and Labour locally.
The article shows how big organisations can, when directed by influential people at the top, discreetly reach down to target their opponents.
I’m neither a THF nor Labour supporter. If Mr Rahman was doing his job well and there were no complaints about his work, then he should stay in his present job. Victimising a person because of their political allegiance is wrong.
Tolerance of other’s opinions even when they are clearly wrong, is something most families accept. Perhaps the Tory government should learn the true meaning of ‘Respect for others’. Its probably difficult for a national political party lead by an unconvincing Spin Doctor.
Curious Cat.
Could we have this in English?
Oui, bien sur. / Ja natuurlijk,
1. Labour always seems to have people in the DWP. It is strongly believed some of those people leak personal data of Labour’s critics and opponents to Labour.
2. It appears Mr Rahman is being unlawfully victimised by the Tories using government facilities.
English = Engels / Anglais
EU = good, very good, our future.
Curious Cat.
Curious Cat
Complete and utter rubbish. I had to sign on for three and a half of the last four years and although Jobcentre staff did their best to try to treat me like a criminal, like a benefit scrounger, and had little or no understanding of benefit rules or how their organisation worked, I can categorically assure you that not once was I approached by them to encourage allegiance to Labour (or any other political party).
Eastenders,
You are mistaken in your understanding of what I wrote.
Curious Cat.
Are you Chris Morris? Is this a script for Brasseye? “There’s absolutely no evidence for this, but it is a fact”
Graham: that sounds like the usual MO for people writing about Tower Hamlets current affairs, no?
“Some of those activists give the vast amounts of personal data, relating to non-Labour supporting activists, easily accessible to DWP staff, to their local Labour Party contacts for political use (attacking Labour’s opponents).
I am NOT stating Mr Rahman has ever done this. But it is a normal Labour Party practice.”
Nobody at the Jobcentre had any idea which party (if any) I supported. Political allegiance is not something which has to be declared. If there were any activists at Poplar Jobcentre they certainly could not identify anybody whose data would qualify to be passed on to other activists (as you claim.)
In any event, the Data Protection Act applies.
Not stating they are at Poplar JSP. Just stating what is for Labour.
You obviously have a weird sense of humour
You may observe the law, but that never implies everyone else does.
Curious Cat
So basically he scweamed and scweamed until he was sick.
Sick or not, there is an important point – Employment Fairness.
If a person is doing their job well, and in a non-political way, and the customers and direct supervisors are not complaining, then very top management – meaning in this case the UK government – should not intervene.
There are many much more important issues Pickles and his political advisers ought to be considering.
Curious Cat.
If I was being moved to another department and I screamed and screamed until I was sick… I would definitely be sacked. It’s ridiculous – is he mental?
Surely it is contrary to democracy and employment rights/law to be sacked for ones political activities, none of which appear to have impacted his work? Unbelievable. (And no, I do not support THF.)
Bet you do, support that is.
He hasn’t been sacked – simply that attempts have been made to transfer him to a role away from the front line. And there is a code of conduct that civil servants and local government staff have to abide by which sets out ‘protected’ jobs (ie most civil service jobs) which must be carried out politically neutrally and individuals in those roles may not undertake political party campaigning.
In local government it is much less of a code than years ago.
Associating, in your own words, with a less than effective ‘code’ is meaningless when those same local government officials make decisions benefitting members of one political party, target opponents of that political party and generally ignore corruption and misconduct linked to the same political party.
Like I repeatedly state, English local government needs replacing with a fit-for-purpose alternative devoid of much of the constant abuses and corruption.
Curious Cat.
Hyperventilated and vomited, eh? Drama queens the lot of them!
When I see them perform at funerals it makes ME want to be sick.
And the way they rush around panicking with ‘casualties’ on stretchers?
Not at all British.
‘Them’, ‘they’: who? What do you mean?
In English Badger.
Muslims, that’s what you wanted, isn’t it?
If so, please don’t comment on here again.
Ted, I believe you’ve previously identified ‘Badger’ as someone who has either made overtly racist statements on here or was connected to the BNP.
Now banned
Curious Cat. In case you haven’t noticed, he isn’t a member of the Labour Party.
He probably was.
The essential point I wish to make is:-
If he is doing his job well and there have been no complaints from customers and no complaints from his immediate superiors, then leave the man alone.
Curious Cat.
Sorry curious I totally disagree with you. The civil service must not just be free from corruption but it must also have the appearance that it is free from corruption. The two are different and Oli had to move. He never does any actual work anyway so no one will miss him!
Bonsoir cher Maurice,
How do you know Mr Rahman never does any actual work ? If that is true, then it could be a reason for his transfer.
I whole heartedly agree with your comment “The civil service must not just be free from corruption but it must also have the appearance that it is free from corruption”. I wonder when English local government will comply ?
But what about competency ? Surely that is equally as important ? Throwing away vast sums of the public’s money on second and third rate mandarins is neither logical, desirable or in the public’s best interest.
Curious Cat.
Could someone clarify Oliur’s political history? I have been googling him and it seem that he has been a member of Respect, Labour and THF., all within the space of a few years.
The question I would ask is, does this man believe in anything except his Council allowances? I really would like an answer.
Dear Mr Roberts,
Does anyone care what you ask and make comment on. You are simply a nobody. Stick to that and you will do well. If you have political disagreements with Cllr Rahman then list them. Disingenuous sniping will simply not do. The other alternative, as a nobody you should try to become a somebody and you could do this by standing in the election against Cllr Rahman. List your grievances and what you intend to do, in a positive way, to help the people of Tower Hamlets. However, my bet is that you will stick behind the curtain of the Internet and carry on as a nobody. Maybe you could start the debate by listing and ‘clarifying’ your political history.
Who are you then?
Are you a relation? I hope not. Rahman is a political opportunist who, to my knowledge, as been in three parties in almost as many years. Can you comment on that?
Is this a husband and wife tiff ?
Very eloquently written Mrs Roberts. Obviously you have superior capabilities to your husband’s 🙂
Curious Cat
It does all seem very confusing. I mean, I don’t have any time for Oli Rahman at all. But I have even less respect for the DWP. Even before IDS was given free rein the civil servants that I met there had extreme tunnel vision of ‘we must carry out what our political masters say and even if everybody who knows anything about the subject is pointing out the pitfalls we will not change a letter of the proposals’. Looks like they’re doing it again.
Of course what they’ve done is now a classic move by DWP under Iain Duncan-Smith: impose a highly-disputable decision, get taken to appeal and lose, seek (or create) new guidance to impose the provisions they were originally intent on applying and go ahead anyway. Usually accompanied by delivering a good kicking via press statements to the person(s) who dared to appeal and suggesting that they should be grateful to be alive. The only unusual thing about this case is that for once it’s being done to one of their own instead of some poor jobseeker who is just trying to defend their basic rights and point out the great big gaping holes in the legislation.
If being a jobcentre advisor is a politically restricted post then what about other roles? I know of councillors (not in TH) who are in social work teams for example. I guess that social workers should not be councillors but admin/managerial jobs back at the Town Hall are ok?
It does seem to fly in the face of common sense.
Apparently the DWP/ Cabinet Office rules have been changed relatively recently in that you are deemed to occupy a politically sensitive position if your job means you have more than three contacts per week with members of the public.
I understand it used to regulated via civil service grades, ie if you were at a certain grade you’d be in a politically restricted role.
The PCS argues the new rules in many ways discriminate against working class people standing for Parliament for example, ie if a relatively lowly benefits adviser became a Parliamentary candidate they’d no longer be able to continue that role.
Incidentally, the Deputy Leader of Croydon Council, Cllr Stuart Collins (Lab), also works in a job centre in a different borough, ie Lewisham. He works as a fraud investigator so his contact with the public is below the threshold. I don’t think he’s had any pressure from his bosses.
Maybe Tower Hamlets is being targeted. The PCS might well push this issue.
Where have PCS argued this Ted? Political restriction is a complex issue , but the inability to stand as an MP is straightforward: civil servants – whatever their grade – are barred, along with a range of other postholders including police, judiciary and armed services under the 1975 House of Commons Disqualification Act – which replaces much older legislation.
The rules on political activity have not, as far as I’m aware, changed recently. If you’re a Grade 7 (about Assistant Director in local gov) or above, you’re barred. Below that, some posts are restricted (e.g. if you work with ministers or senior officials) but the vast majority of posts you have to seek permission, and if permission is refused, you (a) re offered an alternative post (b) can appeal that decision.
It seems Oli has previously appealed, but that his local managers have deemed that the situation has changed as he is now deputy mayor.
My guess is that this has far more to do with the parlous state of industrial relations in the DWP (and the Civil Service) than it does anything to do with Tower Hamlets. A state of affairs that the Trotskyites running PCS are as responsible for as IDS.
Of course, the ruling elite of THF view everything through the prism of victimhood.
It came from a PCS member but will double check. Motions have been debated at conference apparently
You can’t take management action on the basis of motions debated at conference! You’d get laughed out of an employment tribunal! 🙂
The code which proscribes people in front line jobs is NOT recent – see my post below which quotes the relevant Annex from the Civil Service Management Code which is at least over a year old and may be over three years old.
It sounds perfectly proper and sensible to me. How on earth can someone who wants you to vote for him be someone controlling your money. And if it’s not me benefiting it’s my relatives in Newham.
Bad luck Oli. Poor didums. It’s not like you’ve lost your job is it? And you’re on strike most of the time… so thank your lucky stars. Frankly, your tantrum at work should have got you fired.
If he did, he would be getting enough of Tower Hamlets taxpayers money. Basic is abot 10k then more because he is part of the cabinet.
Councillors of Tower Hamlets council receive allowances in respect of their council duties as follows:
A basic allowance is paid to each councillor.
In addition a special responsibility allowance is paid to those councillors who hold a position of special responsibility within the council.
Why is it such a big deal for him to move to another role on the same pay – such a big deal so to make him act like an hysterical child?
Options:
1. He has “issues” that may benefit from a psychological assessment.
2. He is so arrogant and drunk on power that he cannot cope when someone gives him instructions.
3. He is indeed a corrupted public servant and in return for “helping his community achieve its full potential” he benefits politically and wouldn’t do unless he was in a public facing job
Can someone tell me – is it impossible for civil servants to get fired?
A local authority chief executive (technically the Head of Paid Service) can not be “fired” according to law.
Curious cat
Is it a coincidence this has happened on the week the PwC report is due?
I heard the Mayor is packing up his belongings in anticipation of being marched out of the town hall. Peter Golds has booked the Troxy for a celebratory party and Eric has put on his banana suit to rescue the next council. But, PwC have asked for a month extension to spell check the report.
Let us be clear about a few things:
– no one is trying to dismiss Oli Rahman from his position, he is simply being relocated to other duties
– DWP is doing Oli Rahman a favour by proactively protecting him against a situation when he can be a subject of complaints from members of the public in regards to his impartiality
– it is in fact Oli Rahman and not his employers who created the situation where his political world and workplace world got mixed – when he was using taxi services paid by Tower Hamlets resident to travel to and from his workplace location (something he apologised for but it clearly shows that he finds it difficult to separate these two worlds)
– the fact that a Security Guard needed to be involved in a removal of Oli Rahman suggests that he might not have complied with the instructions from his superiors – if this is the case it seems quite disappointing considering Oli Rahman’s political aspirations (this resembles hooliganism of Councillor Rajib Ahmed during his famous confrontation with residents over parking of his mini cab and Anwar Khan’s machete threats towards a parking warden)
– Oli Rahman needs to work more on his PR – the only time we hear about him is when there is a public disorder, doggy taxi expenses or vomits
What hooliganism of Rajib Ahmed? I don’t recall that incident.
And your allegation against Anwar Khan may be defamatory.
– Let me quote Councillor Ahmed himself – perhaps this would refresh your memory “I apologised to residents. It was a great mistake and I’m really ashamed. I was parked on a continuous yellow line and the gates were closed, and I didn’t realise it was the car park entrance.” (TD&ELA 14/05/12)
– Let me also quote Anwar Khan himself “Parking wardens are horrible people and all they want to do is apply a ticket to meet their targets.” (ES 23/01/14) Please take time to learn more about this case and note that the Police had to be called as the incident was escalating towards violence. The parking warden was just doing his job.
Well done Peter
Am I right in thinking Oli Rahman was the Councillor who claimed that he needed to use a taxi to get from work in Newham to the Council Offices? I can’t remember whether he is or not but I do remember thinking at the time that the Councillor concerned needed to think rather more about what was a good use of public money and how to organise his time better in future!
Anyway – back to the matter in hand
Wouldn’t it be nice if all the officers who worked for Tower Hamlets Council also were required to observe the Code of Practice for Civil Servants?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code
With respect to the Job situation, this is what paragraph 4.4. of the “Civil Service Management Code” states the following (N.B. website page dated 1 July 2013 2013 i.e. this is NOT new as in ‘recent’)
________________________
4.4 ANNEX A: GUIDELINES AND PRINCIPLES ON PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
1. In exercising discretion over participation by civil servants in the political activities described in paragraph 4.4.3, departments and agencies must pay regard to the following principles:
a. permission should normally only be refused where civil servants are employed in sensitive areas in which the impartiality of the Civil Service is most at risk. Permission may be granted to individuals or groups to undertake either only national or only local political activities;
b. permission should normally be granted in all other circumstances, provided departments and agencies are satisfied that the civil servants concerned are aware of the need to observe the principles set out in paragraphs 4.4.10 and 4.4.11 and the other rules governing the conduct of civil servants, including those relating to the use of official information.
2. In applying these principles, departments and agencies should regard posts as being “sensitive” if:
a. they are closely engaged in policy assistance to Ministers (or to non-departmental Crown bodies) such as tendering advice or executing immediate Ministerial directives;
b. they are in the private offices of Ministers or senior officials or in areas which are politically sensitive or subject to national security;
c. they require the postholder regularly to speak for the Government or their department or agency in dealings with commercial undertakings, pressure groups, local government, public authorities or any other bodies;
d. the postholder represents the Government in dealing with overseas governments; or
e. the postholder is involved in a significant amount of face to face contact with members of the public who may be expected to know of the postholder’s political activities and makes, or may appear to make, decisions directly affecting them personally.
3. Departments and agencies are advised to apply as helpful a postings policy as possible to staff who wish to become or remain politically active, provided the staff concerned understand that this may have the effect of limiting their range of experience; and to identify blocks of posts in which staff may be granted advance permission to take part in the political activities described in paragraph 4.4.1.
You can read more – see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-servants-terms-and-conditions
_____________________
I don’t see the problem. To my mind he clearly falls into the scope of the restricted posts re. 4.4. Annex A para 2(e)
“the postholder is involved in a significant amount of face to face contact with members of the public who may be expected to know of the postholder’s political activities and makes, or may appear to make, decisions directly affecting them personally.”
If he was a front line worker on the other side of London I don’t suppose the DWP would take the same view.
It rather underlines why those public servants who are active in politics in London have typically tended to ensure that their career activities in public services within London tended to be well away from the place where they lived and held political office. I’ve known a number of officers who have been councillors and a number of councillors who have worked for public serves. I can’t think of one who did so in neighbouring boroughs.
A back office job is an entirely appropriate way of dealing with the situation in an uncompromising way. He gets to keep a job with the DWP and, at the same time, explicitly comply the Code which he agreed to observe when he joined the Civil Service.
The fact that lots of other public servants/politicians make it work only underlines the fact that it’s not difficult to ensure you play by the rules and have a decent work career as well as a political career. I don’t expect the DWP would have any difficulty providing evidence of those who do make the balancing act work if challenged.
Rahman can try taking it to tribunal but IMO I wouldn’t hold out much hope if he’s been offered a decent alternative job.
I can’t remember where it is but I seem to remember that another part of terms and conditions states you can be relocated to another job and another place at any time. Which if I’m right is game over.
You couldn’t (but he did) wrote, inter alia
No it would not. Don’t be a spoil-sport.
If good professional standards were ever to appeared at LBTH, Ted’s Blog would diminish and fade away because there would be nothing to write about 🙂
Why stop at LBTH when the entire country of England needs the enforcement of good professional standards in local government ?
Curious Cat
As “You couldn’t make it up” comments, I’m a bit amazed that he has been allowed to get this far and still be a civil servant.
If I remember correctly, in the Labour Party you are not supposed to hold either an EC officer post or become a candidate/elected rep if you are a civil servant, although such established precedents may not hold in THF, obviously. This is for very good reasons about conflicts of interest.
Rob – I don’t know where you’ve got that idea from, there’s never been anything in the party rule book. I’ve been a Civil Servant for 26 years and was a party officer for almost 20 of them, and a candidate a couple of times. I always sought permission from my manager to be politically active, at one point I took up a politcially restricted post which meant I had to stand down. I know dozens of civil servants who are Labour councillors, and can think of four in the last two TH councils … including Oli!
I’d be very interested in seeing the THF party rule book and understanding what their membership structure is.
Hey Graham – ah, you misunderstand me, I was talking about my understanding of Civil Service, but I guess I should have added the words “in restricted posts”, not all are restricted, as you rightly point out. I know there is nothing in the party rulebook. Obvs bow to your superior knowledge on Civil Service!
I guess my point is really that as a Deputy Leader you have some clout in major financial decisions (something even most MPs don’t), and therefore there’s a much-enhanced potential for conflict of interests. Especially in a council currently undergoing several different investigations.
And yes, I too am fascinated by the idea of a THF party rulebook. I am not sure that it has much provision for “bringing the party into disrepute”.
I mean, you’d almost think it was a vehicle for just one man and his ambition…