Predictably, there seems to be a rearguard action among Lutfur Rahman’s supporters to try and downplay the PwC report.
We can sum up their arguments thus:
1. PwC found no evidence or fraud or corruption
2. What about other councils such as Newham, Basingstoke and Dean, and Timbuktu (ad nauseam): why not investigate them, why pick on Tower Hamlets?
3. How dare PwC lecture Tower Hamlets taxpayers on the best value of public money when it ‘creams’ off millions in Government contracts.
4. It’s a Tory plot.
Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are the arguments of student common room (where 9/11 truthers might even find a home).
On Number 1, the report says it was made aware of nine cases of suspected fraud involving grants and contracts during its inspection, but it agreed to leave these alone as further questioning might jeopardise police/council investigations.
We can assume that money linked to the Brady Youth Forum was one of those nine and, as I pointed out in this post here in April, the council has some explaining to do on that.
The report, when you read it in detail, is excellent. As I’ve said before, the PwC auditors were clearly shocked by what they found.
And from the tone of the report, you can see where they believe the problems lay. I suspect they had some (probably more than some) sympathy with most council officers (although there are one or two significant exceptions to that).
On the other hand, they seemed wholly unimpressed with certain elected members and their powers of recall to remember important facts and details. The Mayor himself, lawyer, suffered from that problem, but he is much busier than his underlings.
The devil is in the detail, as they say. There was unjustifiable political interference in decision-making. Grant awards could easily have been made on the back of an envelope.
What I’d like to see is much more evidence on how the grant monies were/are actually spent. Which salaries are b eing paid for, what do they do etc etc?
When, in 2012, I highlighted the questionably invoices submitted by Gulam Robbani for his work as a mayoral adviser, there was outrage across the political spectrum, including from inside Lutfur’s camp.
Those invoices, which ‘detailed’ some pretty dodgy timesheets for his work, were signed off by the head of Lutfur’s office, Murziline Parchment. Did she check work done against his invoices? No. He may well have done work to justify his contract but those invoices didn’t show it.
There was no financial or management control in place. And when there are no such controls, you create an environment where wrongdoing can happen. Or where you don’t get the best value for public money.
That’s what PwC have highlighted. How many of these groups receiving grants are submitting solid invoices to back up their original applications?
Surely Lutfur’s supporters can see this? You wouldn’t run a business with your own personal money in that way, so why should a council be any different?
As for Number 2: let’s not forget that the politics of Tower Hamlets have been a nationally known basket-case for many years. It’s reputation become increasingly poisonous. You only have to watch to the video of Alibior Choudhury labelling former Labour councillor Ann Jackson a fascist-type ‘black cardigan’ (when she was in mourning for her ex-husband) to see how low it has stunk.
The dysfunctional politics (together with the challenging transformation to a mayoral system of governance) has caused real problems at officer level. The lack of a strong chief executive and a decent monitoring officer is both a symptom of that, and a contributory factor to the reputational chaos.
On Number 3. This is another form of whataboutery. Shoot the messenger. There are of course concerns about corporate lobbying of government and Whitehall waste. The latter has been something of a political mantra for Eric Pickles himself. But banging on about the bigger macro picture does a disservice to the actual cause.
If we have more scrutiny and adherence to processes at a grassroots/micro/town hall level, then there’d be less need (and work) for the likes of PwC. PwC were brought in because there were obvious failings in that respect.
Take care of the council pennies and the national pounds will better (to some degree) look after themselves.
As for Number 4: if it’s a Tory plot, might you argue: Why hasn’t Pickles gone after the country’s biggest Labour dominated authority, ie Newham?
Lutfur was an easier target, of course, because he was no longer part of the political mainstream. He didn’t have Labour support. But again, this is all part of the dysfunctional politics.
So where are we at?
The council has given its assurance to DCLG over the distribution of further grants, as required by Eric. It has until November 18 to make its representations on the proposal to send in Commissioners.
Some in Lutfur’s team want to take an aggressive stance and examine a possible legal challenge…another misguided David vs Goliath battle.
I know there are senior council officers who would rather now just knuckle down and take the medicine. Further legal challenges would just further erode the borough’s reputation.
Lutfur should see the appointment of commissioners as an opportunity. With them there, it’ll arguably be more difficult for people to criticise him. He’d benefit, both politically and as an administrator. He’d be better able to concentrate on his messages such as housing.
And when/if the Commissioners leave in 2017, a year before the next election, he might even have a good success story to sing about.
In the meantime, I leave you with PwC’s report on how the council co-operate with the inspection team (this, remember, after the town hall had ‘welcomed’ their arrival). The penultimate paragraph, 1.46, is particularly telling. The Interim Monitoring Officer is not named: It’s Meic Sullivan-Gould.
Timing and duration of the Inspection
1.28 The Inspection commenced on 4 April 2014, the date of the Appointment Letter. Our field work was substantially complete by 5 September 2014, since which time we have focused on fact checking with the Authority and with individual witnesses (see below for more detail) and in finalising this report.
1.29 In the Appointment Letter, we were directed to report our findings from the Inspection by 30 June 2014 or such later date as might be agreed between us and the Secretary of State. This flexibility reflected the inherent uncertainties at the outset of the Inspection. Examples of these uncertainties included the
volume and ease of access of information that might need to be examined; the extent, nature and implications of any issues that might emerge; and the level and timeliness of co-operation we would receive from the Authority.
1.30 By a letter dated 27 June 2014, PwC informed DCLG that it would not be in a position to report by 30 June. This letter formalised the position that had been apparent for some time prior to that date and which had been discussed between PwC and DCLG on a number of occasions. The primary reason given in the 27 June letter for the need for an extension beyond 30 June 2014 was the failure of the Authority to provide information on a timely basis, or at all, in relation to a number of important requests made by the Inspection team. Given the inherently iterative nature of the Inspection, the delay in provision of information had a significant impact on our overall progress in pursuing our enquiries in the various areas of focus, as well as our ability to plan for and arrange interviews, which were expected in turn to bring to light further information and documents that we would need to review and consider.
1.31 By a letter dated 30 June 2014 DCLG replied, agreeing to a postponement of the reporting deadline. It was proposed that further discussions should take place between PwC and DCLG in the first half of July 2014 to determine by when PwC could reasonably be expected to report under the circumstances. Those discussions led to the conclusion that we were unlikely to report before the middle of September 2014, but that the position would be kept under regular review.
1.32 For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that by a letter dated 4 July 2014 (received by PwC on 7 July 2014), the Mayor wrote to PwC objecting to the manner in which the Authority’s level of cooperation and responsiveness to requests had been characterised in PwC’s letter to DCLG of 27 June 2014 and asserting (in summary) that such characterisation was inaccurate and partial. PwC responded to the Mayor’s letter by a further letter dated 17 July 2014. In the 17 July letter, PwC rejected the Mayor’s assertions on the basis that there were no material errors of fact in our 27 June letter, and also took the opportunity to expand on some of the aspects of the Authority’s stance that had contributed to delays in the provision of requested information and documentation.
1.33 On 25 September 2014 we received a further letter from the Mayor responding to our letter of 17 July 2014 to him. The Mayor reiterated his view that our 27 June 2014 letter did not present an accurate and impartial view of the Authority’s co-operation with the Inspection. We remain of the view that our 27 June 2014 letter presented a materially accurate and fair view of the position. We will respond formally to the Mayor’s latest letter shortly.
Approach to our work
General principles
1.34 As directed by the Secretary of State through the Appointment Letter, our primary focus throughout the Inspection has been the four areas outlined at paragraph 1.8. Our approach to each of these areas is set out in more detail in the relevant sections of this report, however, at a general level, our approach to each area has typically included the following common elements:
Fact finding meetings with relevant officers (i.e. employees of the Authority) (“officers”) to gain an understanding of the operation of the area in question;
“Walk-throughs” of relevant processes to confirm our understanding;
Requests for information, data and documentation of relevance to the Authority’s financial systems, relevant processes generally, or individual programmes or transactions, as appropriate;
Detailed analysis of individual transactions or categories of transactions targeted on a risk based approach; and
Formal interviews with selected officers, councillors and the Mayor.
1.35 The above steps are iterative and often overlapping, rather than strictly sequential. Furthermore, while each of the four areas has been the subject of a separate work stream within the Inspection, there are certain points of cross-over between them, which are brought out in the relevant sections of this report.
Selection of items for detailed examination
1.36 Within the four primary areas of focus, the selection of specific transactions or categories of transaction for detailed examination has been judgemental and risk-based rather than purely random or statistical. As intimated above, the Inspection has not occurred in a vacuum. It was instigated as a result of concerns brought to light by a variety of sources, some of which have been aired in the media. In addition, further sources, from both inside and outside the Authority, have approached us with information during the course of the Inspection. We have also had regard to matters escalated through the Authority’s own governance processes, including the deliberations of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee (the “O&S Committee”) and the work of the Authority’s Internal Audit function. Finally, we have made our own judgements about where risks might lie given the nature of the transactions in question.
Information sourced other than from the Authority
1.37 In the early stages of the Inspection, we established a dedicated and regularly monitored email address (lbth.inspectors@uk.pwc.com) through which anyone wishing to provide information in confidence could contact us. This email address was featured on the DCLG website. Over the course of the Inspection, we have received 256 communications into that email address from 38 individuals. In addition, other sources have approached us directly (i.e. other than through the dedicated email address referred to above), again with information of varying degrees of relevance to our remit. Not all of these communications were relevant to our terms of reference, but those that were have been factored as appropriate, into our approach.
1.38 In addition to the above, we have also had dialogue with a number of former officers of the Authority about their contemporaneous knowledge of matters relevant to the Inspection.
1.39 We have actively sought to engage with those sources who have come forward and who appeared to have information of potential relevance to our terms of reference and where we required further detail or clarification. Not all sources have been able to back up their concerns or allegations with tangible evidence and in those instances, where we have not been able through our Inspection to fill this evidential gap, we have been unable to give the information they have provided much, if any, weight.
Fact checking by the Authority and by interviewees
1.40 The extensive factual components of sections 3 to 7 inclusive of this report have been subject to a fact checking exercise between us and the Authority. The Authority was given a 10 working day period from 11 to 24 September 2014 to review factual extracts and provide comments and, where appropriate, any additional evidence which it wanted us to take into consideration. In parallel, individuals whom we have interviewed, and from whose interviews we were proposing to cite particular statements (with or without attribution), were given the opportunity over 10 working days to review and comment on those citations. We have received responses from the Authority and the majority of the relevant individuals, which at our discretion we have reflected as we deemed appropriate in this final version of the report.
The Authority’s stance vis-à-vis the Inspection
1.41 On 4 April 2014, the date of our appointment, the Mayor’s Office4 issued a statement welcoming the Inspection stating “I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to send independent auditors to review our grants processes. This review will demonstrate that the Council acts in the best interests of all Tower Hamlets residents ”.
1.42 On 1 July 2014 (some three months later) the Mayor wrote to the Secretary of State informing him that he had asked the Authority’s Interim Monitoring Officer to initiate a judicial review of his decision to instigate the Inspection. We note that, in refusing the Authority’s application for judicial review, the judge considered each of the grounds advanced by the Authority in its application as “unmeritorious” and the first ground as “hopeless”. We understand that the Authority has now applied for an oral hearing and that this is due to be heard by a High Court judge on 14 November 2014.
1.43 It should be acknowledged that the Authority gave assurances to us that the initiation of judicial review proceedings would not affect the on-going cooperation of the Authority with the Inspection. Notwithstanding the issues outlined below and elsewhere concerning the level of cooperation of the Authority and its responsiveness to our requests for information and documentation, it is fair to say that the commencement of judicial review proceedings did not in itself have any significant effect on the Authority’s dealings with the Inspection team.
1.44 At the outset of the Inspection the Authority established a Project Management Office (“PMO”) to oversee and manage the flow of information and documentation to the Inspection team and to assist in the arrangement of meetings and, in due course, more formal interviews. This was in principle a helpful step and created a useful mechanism for liaison between the Inspection team and the Authority, very much in accordance with our desire for there to be a clear line of communication and a single point of contact for formal requests. The Inspection team has met regularly with the PMO team to discuss the status of information requests and provide further explanation and clarification where necessary. Initially, such meetings took place on a daily basis, reducing in frequency as the Inspection progressed and the need for such frequent meetings reduced. We recognise the PMO team and no doubt many other officers have put in considerable effort to collate and provide the requested material.
1.45 Over the course of the Inspection, we made a total of 290 requests via the PMO for information or documentation. Some of these were quite broad, in some cases involving the provision of large volumes of documents or data, while others were for targeted items mentioned to us in meetings or interviews or referred to in other documents already provided to us. Inspectors are required to give three days’ notice of a request. In practice, we have not generally insisted on being provided with full responses to all requests within three days, recognising that some of our requests were substantial in scope or that the requested information or documentation might reasonably be expected to take longer to collate.
1.46 As discussed at paragraph 1.41 et seq, despite its public assertions of support for the Inspection, the Authority has at various stages raised a number of obstacles to our progress which have significantly delayed the provision of information or documentation and which in large part led to our request for an extension of the time table for the Inspection. These obstacles broadly related to the Authority’s concerns about the legality and/or scope of the Inspection. Additionally, the Authority raised issues as to whether or not we were entitled access to documents that might be covered by legal professional privilege.
Taking each of these in turn:
On 12 May 2014, we were informed that the Interim Monitoring Officer required us to “certify” a significant number of requests. There is no legal basis upon which the Authority could require such certification, and we were not prepared to do so. Furthermore, the form of words the Authority sought to prescribe in the certification defined the scope of the Inspection too narrowly and were therefore not in a form which we could accept, even if we had been prepared to do so in principle. All requests for which the Authority was taking the position that it needed individual certification were put on hold. On 13 June 2014 (just over a month later) without further explanation, we were informed that certification was no longer an issue.
On 7 May 2014 we requested access to certain legal files. This request was followed up as outstanding on a number of occasions until 4 June 2014 (almost a month later), when the Authority informed us that we were required to sign up to a number of written conditions and undertakings in relation to the requested material. These included an acknowledgement up front that all the said material was privileged, which we pointed out we could not know without seeing it first and which was unlikely in any event, given the probability that even legal files would contain material that was not itself privileged by virtue of the circumstances in which it had been created. Without our acceding to all of the Authority’s demands in relation to this material, we started to gain access to it on 16 June 2014, some six weeks after first requesting it.
1.47 One example of a request of central importance to the Inspection which was subject to very significant delay was the provision of basic accounting data covering the majority of the Period. Until 1 April 2013, the Authority used a JD Edwards Financial System, migrating to an Agresso Financial System during that year. While in discussions with the Authority about the provision of data from the current Agresso Financial System (which also resulted in some delay) we requested data from the JD Edwards Financial System on 29 April 2014. We know from discussions with relevant Authority staff that the data was extracted and ready to be provided to us by 12 May 2014. However, the Authority challenged the legality of this request, and it has continued to reserve its position on this matter, even as it finally authorized the release of the data to us on 20 June 2014, almost two months after the initial request and just ten days before our original reporting date. We have referred to the data from the JD Edwards Financial System and the Agresso Financial System together in the remainder of this report as the “Financial Data”.
Trial by Jeory 
Agree on the nationally known basket case front but the more intellectually curious among us would question the premise of precisely why that is.
Anecdotes abouts Alibor saying stupid and outrageous things in the chamber don’t cut it.
In Haringey, a Lib Dem called a Jewish Labour councillor ‘Fuhrer’ a few months ago. Nazi references are sadly commonplace in town halls.
It is laughable for anyone to suggest that the ethnic make-up of the membership of the LBTH don’t have a role to play. Political scandal involving black people sells papers to a greater extent than when it’s mainly white people. I think as a journalist you know that and it’s disingenuous not to acknowledge it – and not whataboutery to question it.
Can you tell me the ethnicities of those arrested for electoral fraud in the 2013 elections
No, I can’t. They were never published. One of them
is thought to be a Conservative candidate though. Why?
It’s interesting that you mention “whataboutery” as that typifies just about every comment you have ever made here.
Top UK political scandals:
1963 Profumo (Conservative)
1974 John Stonehouse (Labour)
1976 Lavender List Scandal (Labour)
1990 Matrix Churchill (Conservative)
1997 F1 Tobacco (Labour)
1998 Ron Davies moment of madness (Labour)
2006 Tessa Jowell (Labour)
2006-2007 Cash for Honours (Labour)
2008 Parliamentary Expenses Scandal – all parties
To the best of my knowledge none of these were not white (excepting some in Cash for Honours). All of these scandals generated a phenomenal amount of press coverage. It is unfair to try and make out that Lutfur is being picked on because he is brown. Cronyism is cronyism!
Top UK political scandals:
1963 Profumo (Conservative)
1974 John Stonehouse (Labour)
1976 Lavender List Scandal (Labour)
1990 Matrix Churchill (Conservative)
1997 F1 Tobacco (Labour)
1998 Ron Davies moment of madness (Labour)
2006 Tessa Jowell (Labour)
2006-2007 Cash for Honours (Labour)
2008 Parliamentary Expenses Scandal – all parties
To the best of my knowledge none of these were not white (excepting some in Parliamentary Expenses). All of these scandals generated a phenomenal amount of press coverage. It is unfair to try and make out that Lutfur is being picked on because he is brown. Cronyism is cronyism!
What on earth have political scandals which are wholly related to central government, parliament and MPs got to do with local government?
There are some very, very big political scandals in local government – none of which are on your list. You may struggle to name some of them given they happened outside London!
I’ll let you see if you can come up with any – I’m off to get my dinner out of the oven…….
There has to be a link between Bangladesh being ranked as the most corrupt country in the entire world and Bangladeshi politicians in the UK being associated with activities on the “corruption spectrum”… it would be daft to presume the norms of the homeland do not have an effect on the behaviour of the diaspora?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4353334.stm
ycmiu
Oldford1 stated
‘Political scandal involving black people sells papers to a greater extent than when it’s mainly white people.’
Illustrating that this is not necessarily the case. The biggest scandals in the last 50 or so years involved mainly white people and had a lot more attention than LBTH.
LA scandals, let’s see
‘The award of public contracts for gain, nepotism, or political favours by local party bosses architect Poulson & council leader T Dan Smith’
‘Derek Hatton, Liverpool failed to set budget, charged and later acquitted’
‘Clay Cross, Derbyshire defied the Heath government in the 1970s, refusing to increase council house rents. The battle raged for two years. The rebels were heftily surcharged and declared bankrupt in 1975.’
‘1995, Labour councillors in Monklands, Lanarkshire, were suspended by Tony Blair after they were criticised in a report for nepotism and overspending. There were claims that a Catholic mafia on the council had been giving jobs to relatives’
‘May 1995 Islington council. An investigation found that policies favouring gays and ethnic minorities had helped paedophiles, pimps and drug dealers to victimise children in council care’
‘Homes-for-votes scandals before the last war, Labour’s Herbert Morrison ran the London County Council and packed areas with sympathetic voters through his housing policy’
‘Shirley Porter, Westminster, gerrymandering the poor out of the borough’
‘AN MP says he is “amazed” by claims that senior Wirral Council officers hid key information over the precarious financial state of a firm handed a major contract to repair West Kirby’s marine lake
Birkenhead’s Frank Field has openly challenged Wirral Council’s senior civil servants, asking: “How many more scandals must we have before officers are sacked?” ‘
Please correct me but none of these people, to my knowledge, were being victimised for being black/brown.
You’ve left a fair few out (e.g. Doncaster (Donneygate) and Doncaster (kids) to name but two) – but you’ve certainly got some of the big ones although some have a misleading summary.
My own view is that Clay Cross does not count as a scandal. It was a dispute certainly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Cross#Housing_Finance_Act_dispute
Also if you want to include that one you’d have to also include the Poplar Rates Rebellion! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Rates_Rebellion and I’ve never ever heard that one described as a scandal!
I would summarise the characteristics of local government scandals as being one or more of the following:
* megalomania / pronounced self-interest on the part of the Leader or the key figures within the Council (who aren’t always obvious to the public) and/or key Council Officers.
* bribery by people who want the Council to do something for them
* too many incompetent councillors who can be manipulated by those who are out to line their own pockets
* lack of an effective opposition (e.g. the one party council)
* lack of an effective performance monitoring by Council Officers / Councillors / Internal Auditors / External Auditors
* an absent CEO and/or incompetent or poorly performing officers at a senior management level
* grossly inadequate systems
* sale of land or decisions about planning which are less than rigorous
* payment of votes (which come in more ways than one)
With respect to victimisation based on race – I can’t think of a specifically local government scandal that has had anything to do with the colour of an individual’s skin or their cultural heritage – except in relation to some of the ones which relate to children who have been victims of abuse which the Council and others allow to run riot
I suggest readers check out my suggested characteristics of local government scandals above and have a think about whether any apply to Tower Hamlets!
Maybe you can suggest some additional characteristics?
More Scottish scandals.
North Lanarkshire
Provost Vincent Mathieson was leading a four-person delegation to Scotland’s World Cup clash with Brazil – with taxpayers picking up the £2000 tab.
Allegations that councillors were calling up porn on the Internet.
Employees of the council owed it >£1M in unpaid council tax.
North Lanarkshire’s predecessor, Monklands, had to be bailed out for approx £5M
Glasgow City Council
Biggest annual budget in Scotland, investigations into claims that politicians were trading their support for places on foreign trips.
Six councillors were suspended and charged with breaking party rules.
Renfrewshire
Councillors are involved in regular battles with SNP opponents which result in the police being called in.
West Dunbartonshire
Labour council leader Andy White was accused of conspiring to remove Chief Executive Micheal Watters.
Recently, £1M wasted on trying to force a new secondary school onto a flood plain at the convergence of the Leven and Clyde.
Independent Councillors suspended and banned from speaking at Council Meetings for opposing the ruling Labour Party.
Protest vote for SNP
Senior Labour party member voted for SNP
Seems to be rife anywhere there is a Labour majority and no credible opposition.
I walked around the path around West Kirby’s marine lake at the weekend, still flooding problems in parts.
On that particular contract Wirral Council knew the building contractor was in financial difficulties yet awarded the contract.
Then part way through delivering the contract the building contractor went bust leaving a half finished job.
So then they had to pay a second contractor to finish off the work of the first contractor.
When investigated, Wirral Council had paid both the first contractor and the second contractor. When asked why they went ahead with the work when they knew the company was going bust?
Well the bit of Wirral Council that agreed to go ahead with the contract wasn’t told that the company was going bust as the due diligence on such matters had been done by a different department and not communicated to those making the decisions.
Oh and when politicians signed off on the contractor they didn’t tell them either.
However nobody gets sacked, because apparently this is nobody’s fault (whether councillor or officer).
OF1,
Let’s put your argument the other way ’round – the non-PC way; why do you think brown people are more involved in political scandal than white people?
Tim.
I don’t. That was my point.
And the only reason you believe they get more newspaper coverage is because the newspapers sell more when it’s brown people involved in scandal than when it’s white people?
Nice balanced viewpoint you’ve got there. Chip on both shoulders.
Tim.
Good spot about Doncaster * 2
Then there was Orkney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_child_abuse_scandal
Cleveland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal
The Poplar one reminds me of a rate refusal strike in the 60s.
The only other criteria I can add is religion/bigotry. It happened in Scotland from heaven knows when and still occurs. It can be blatant or hidden by pleasantries. One of the delights of moving to England nearly 40 years ago was the absence of bigotry. Times change. Heaven help us!
Where’s your evidence that the ethnic make-up of the membership of the LBTH has a role to play?
The ethnic make up probably does have a role to play. Firstly, as I said up there somewhere, there has to be a link between Bangladesh being ranked among the most corrupt countries in the entire world and Bangladeshi politicians in the UK being associated with activities on the “corruption spectrum”… it would be daft to presume the norms of the homeland do not have an effect on the behaviour of the diaspora?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4353334.stm
Also, the central allegations in the Panorama programme which have been born out in the PwC investigation is that Bangladeshi groups (some of which did not even ask for money, etc) received an enormous increase (something like 240% I read somewhere) in funding and non-Bangladeshi groups saw their funding slashed and this occurred under an EXCLUSIVELY Bangladeshi council executive (mayor and cabinet)… any sensible person must note that their must be a connection; either that or they are denying the obvious.
The Authority’s stance vis-à-vis the Inspection
Can’t help noticing that requests were made by PWC one side of the elections (22nd May) and were then acceded to after a period of delay by the Council on the other side of the elections (eg the “certification” info, access to legal files etc). Could be coincidence or then you can never be too careful.
I doubt the coincidence of timing passed PwC’s notice.
However what you notice and comment on privately, what you tell the Minister and what you write in a report for public consumption can be very different things…. 😉
The notion of certification coupled with an attempt to redefine the scope of the investigation are both ludicrous. To my mind, both are actions that indicate EITHER somebody who was well out of their depth in terms of dealing with government intervention of this nature OR such actions were, in effect, a “grasping at straws” to keep his boss happy. Which incidentally is NOT the job of any of the three designated officers.
My personal view, based on previous evidence highlighted by this blog, is that PwC will have developed a view about the competence and performance of Meic Sullivan-Gould, the Interim Monitoring Officer at a fairly early stage.
My guess is prospective future clients of Meic Sullivan-Gould may also well ask PwC for an opinion of his abilities and performance.
Professional behaviour and standards around confidentiality usually prevent any comment. However that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways of asking questions which generate a response.
Tower Hamlets is rotten to the core. I doubt Lutfur will be in power much longer. It’ll be interesting to see his arguments over the rigged election.
Re (2): send in the auditors! Please! I don’t think there’s anything actually Lutfuresque going on here, but there’s no opposition in the council—let alone an effective one—to hold the blessed Sir Robin to account; you do start wondering about some of the initiatives and where the money goes…
Like I said, I don’t think it’s anything on the scale of Tower Hamlets or comparable in intent to what Lutfur’s been up to, but there are definitely some dark corners of incompetence and indifference here that could do with some airing out.
Ted, I would like to add my thanks to that of many other Tower Hamlets residents to you for keeping us so well informed on this sorry saga.
In your last post you mentioned in the same breath almost the corporate lobby and the Labour stronghold Newham.
When one looks at that borough’s determined attempt to create a mini Heathrow in east London by allowing the continued expansion of City Airport in the face of thousands of objections from its residents and those in surrounding boroughs. Perhaps its time for Pickles to have a look at the influence of the corporate lobby in Newham which has created such a disconnect between Newham Council and its residents.
And what do Tower Hamlets and Newham have in common?………..Executive Mayors.
Did you watch Pickles’ announcement to Parliament? His gloss over the inherent inadequacies of this form of government/governance and his side swipe about how the PWC Report somehow made up for the abolition of the Audit Commission [and the uselessness of local Standards Boards (my view)] was jaw dropping.
But I think we need to stay focussed on Tower Hamlets for now. The discussion about Executive Mayors is probably one for post next election and after the Election Petition has played out.
When the Audit Commission was a small HQ team alongside the District Audit Service, it had an excellent track record and an excellent reputation and repeatedly attracted plaudits from government ministers.
However its problems around popularity and reputation started when it started to employ people who were not auditors and it began to grow like topsy!
The same sort of problems can of course be seen in some local authorities…….. and Mayor’s offices…….
“Lutfur should see the appointment of commissioners as an opportunity. With them there, it’ll arguably be more difficult for people to criticise him. He’d benefit, both politically and as an administrator. He’d be better able to concentrate on his messages such as housing.
“And when/if the Commissioners leave in 2017, a year before the next election, he might even have a good success story to sing about.”
A fine argument, but it works on the premise that Lutfur has a heart for the local area and wants to see the situation of it’s people improved. I believe that that premise is false; Lutfur cares about very few things, and prestige and money (in his own pocket) are very near the top of the list. A man who puts his smiling, benevolent face on all council property (from letterheads to buildings), who rebuilds his personal office ‘suite’ with a blank cheque to pay for it, who drives himself around in an ostentatiously large luxury car, who gives away money willy-nilly to people of the same colour as him – a man like that doesn’t care a jot for housing. He cares only for his position, and keeping enough of his acolytes and cronies happy enough to keep him in that position.
Being told how to do his job isn’t offensive for him; it being known that he has no power and is fraudulent and corrupt is deeply offensive for him; why else is he so happy to crow about there being ‘no fraud’?
The best thing that can come from the PWC report is wide acknowledgement that he is fraudulent, a removal of any ability of his to grant money to, or employ, others, and his public disgrace. Many of these things have already happened, which is why the report has been so widely welcomed. With luck, the rest will follow – possibly with the results of the investigation into electoral fraud.
Tim.
I imagine Lutfur will imagine that he can win over the hearts and minds of the Commissioners. Doubtless various supporters will be wheeled out to say what an excellent chap he is. Nothing whatsoever to do with the grant monies received by their organisations you understand….
Rahman’s wings clipped. See letter here
Click to access 141107_-_PRowsell_to_S_Halsey_-_final_redacted.pdf
His fan base including Gorgeous George and Red Ken are meeting Wednesday
Cllr. Mahbub Alam @MahbubAlam01 3h3 hours ago Poplar, London
Save democracy in #TowerHamlets meeting in Water Lily E1 on Wed 12th Nov 6pm- guests @ken4london @georgegalloway @MayorLutfur and many more
Lutfur and his cronies can bleat all they like about the report – none of their arguments hold water and it won’t change anything. To try and dismiss the report in the way he has using the same tired old arguments just shows how desperate and arrogant the Mayor and his supporters have become.
Clearly whatever else the auditors fund, they had clear evidence of the Mayor and councillors breaking ALL the Seven Principles of Public Life, also known as the “Nolan principles”.They are:
Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
Integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness – Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty – Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership – Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
What right has this council got to ignore these principles which are established in law?
I believe the Nolan Principles actually inform the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members. Unfortunately I don’t think the Interim Monitoring Officer has ever read it.
They must have read it.
How else can you explain them doing the complete opposite.
I thought there were six Nolan sisters?
Sorry just seen it was named after Lord Nolan
Ted, I would like to add following item 5 to your list:
5. PwC report is utter nonsense. It did not deliver a knockout blow so it does not really matter in the grand scheme of things.
There have been some major political scandals in central and local politics over the years, some of which are discussed by various posters above. Often they have led to resignations. I am currently reading The Eye of the Storm by Tory MP, Rob Wilson about political scandals in Westminster. Very interesting read indeed.
Anyway, the PwC report has not led to any resignations and I am confident that it will pale into significance in due course (most certainly before the next mayoral election).
Lutfur thrives on scandals. He has handled far worse in the past. If there is anyone who can handle a pseudo scandal and move on, Lutfur can. He is a legend. And that’s why people love him. He is also extremely to you and others who don’t like him. He makes sure he gives you plenty of material to talk about and keep busy.
Therefore, you do your job – analyse, hypothesise and theorise. Meanwhile, Lutfur can do his job of running TH. Everyone is happy.
MotCO had been conspicuously silent recently and comes back with this nonsense. Is that really your best and how do you know any of what you say, or is it just wishful thinking?
Interestingly he/she does say …’and I am confident that it will pale into significance in due course…’ Seems he/she is coming round to a better way of thinking.
Jay Kay, I am a bloke so you do not need to refer to me as “he/she…”.
I am trying to get you lot to see the bigger picture. That’s all.
Panorama came and went. That chapter is closed.
PwC came and they’ve also gone. This chapter will close very soon.
That’s not a very accurate way of describing the way things are working
1) A lot of concern expressed by a lot of people led to the BBC initiative to have the Panorama programme
2) The Panorama Programme led to the PwC report
3) The PwC report is leading to the appointment of three Commissioners who will, among other things, make appointments to the three statutory roles at the top of the organisation.
4) The Commissioners will be around until 2017. That’s not what I call “very soon”.
In the meantime, The Election Court will review the conduct of the election.
For all we know the findings of the Election Court may result in Mayor Rahman being ousted as Mayor by the Judge before the Commissioners leave in 2017.
It may be your worst case scenario but it is at the very least a possible scenario.
Of one thing we can be absolutely certain Rahman is now “damaged goods” and there is absolutely no way back to the Labour Party. The same might be said about his fellow THF Councillors and Cabinet Members.
So when you say “very soon” which year exactly are you talking about?
More of the usual piffle from MOTCO – yet again failing to realise that not everybody is happy with this administration – from how Rahman was elected in the first place and an awful lot of how he has conducted his administration since
Of course what happens next rather depends on whether Lutfur is still around after the Election Court!
see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/local-elections/11218290/The-full-story-of-the-medieval-monarch-of-Tower-Hamlets.html
I didn’t realise that
The judge, Richard Mawrey QC, has the power to void the election and ban Mr Rahman from office.
Thank you for reminding me of this chapter re election petition. I am sure it will close soon too. Lutfur will triumph.
If there is a recount, Lutfur will end up with more votes. Trust me.
How exactly do you make that out based on the reports of what’s being found as the bundles of so-called Rahman votes are being taken apart?
For example
“There was a significant number of Mr Rahman’s bundles where there were fewer than 50 votes for him in the bundle, or votes for other candidates in the bundle,” said a source.”
If you are quoting from a newspaper (i.e. works of Gilligan’s vivid imagination), then you have no idea how things work in real life.
It is a distinct possibility that Lutfur will end up with more votes if there is a recount.
It is highly improbable that the difference between Lutfur and Biggs was some 3000 votes in the end. There is a huge gulf between the two in terms of popularity. It is likely that Lutfur won by significantly more votes. Let’s wait and see.
OK – fair’s fair – I’ll agree it’s a distinct possibility that Rahman might be found to have got more votes if you agree that it’s a definite possibility that Rahman might be removed from office and banned from holding political office again for a defined period of time.
I quote from pages 47/48 of the The Electoral Commission’s (2012) report on “Challenging Elections in the UK” which you can find at http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-the-UK.pdf
____________________________
Sanctions
Principle – The body determining the challenge should have authority to impose appropriate sanctions in the event the challenge is upheld, namely to annul the election result and order a new election to be held.
179. In the UK, ‘at the conclusion of the trial of a parliamentary election petition, the election court shall determine whether the member whose election or return is complained of, or any and what other person, was duly returned or elected or whether the election was void, and the determination so certified shall be final to all intents as to the matters at issue on the petition’. The voiding of the election will trigger a by- election in the electoral area.
180. Section 159(1) of the RPA 1983 states that, ‘If a candidate who has been elected is reported by an election court personally guilty or guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice his election shall be void’. In the UK, where an election court decides that a candidate is guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, the court must report this to the High Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales) or Lord Advocate (Scotland) and the Secretary of State.
181. If the election court reports that a candidate or other person is personally guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice, for a period of five or three years they will be prevented from:
• being registered as an elector or voting at any parliamentary election in the United Kingdom or at any local government election in Great Britain, or
• being elected to the House of Commons, or
• holding any elective office
Furthermore, if the guilty person has already been elected to a seat in the House of Commons, or holding any such office, they must vacate it straight away.
182. The above proceedings show that the UK system, as recommended by the international standards, allows for elections to be annulled and new elections held.
________________________
I removed the references to endnotes but I’m sure you can read the original and look these up for yourself if you are interested.
I think you’re successfully trying to wind people up and I applaud your humour.
The PwC should be a learning curve for Lutfur, a signpost for him to care about transparency and proper processes.
With some of the people/parasites hanging round him, he needs protection from himself.
Good governance arrangements will make him a better leader.
Yay, you’re back! Have you been on holiday? It makes this blog all the more interesting when one of Lutfur’s sheep are bleating
Hello ConcernedOfShadwell, I can see that you have missed me. Also, thank you for your characterisation of me as a sheep. Well, I feel lucky to have avoided slaughter in the recent eid ul adha (when Muslims slaughter sheep, cows, goats etc.).
Its true, I have missed you loads! I sincerely hope you survive the slaughter when Mr Rahman decides to throw you all under that Clapham bus to save his own sorry ass 😉
Re. the Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/tower-hamlets-london-mayor-lutfur-rahman-eric-pickles
Rahman clearly hasn’t read the report and the Secretary of State’s proposals for intervention and fails to understand the proposed powers for the Commissioners (see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/london-borough-of-tower-hamlets-council-inspection ) if he genuinely believes that the Commissioners’ powers will only extend to grants!
Maybe somebody needs to give him Council Mayor equivalent of the “junior reader” version?
Or have Council Officers just given up on trying to advise him any anything?
So far all he is doing with every announcement is demonstrating even more clearly why this Mayor presents a “deeply concerning picture of obfuscation (and) denial”
Another car-crash of an interview although the ‘medieval monarch’ of an extremist-linked Mayor is right about one thing; his administration is an embarrassment.
I’m slightly surprised that The Grauniad published that article. I guess they want to allow the other side of the story out, which is to be commended, but it’s clearly very, very wrong. Maybe that’s the point of it – it (once again) shows the Mayor in his true colours; deceitful, out of touch with reality and arrogant.
Tim.
Well, EEL is out today. And the big story in the borough, that hit the national news headlines, only makes page 3 of the local paper! And that article is distinctly partisan.
Tim
Never mind Tim – it’s only more evidence for the Commissioners – if any were needed – of the way affairs are conducted in Tower Hamlets.
Remember “Obfuscation and Denial” is the name of The Rahman Game…….
Interesting – what’s happened to that article about youths with fireworks?
Tim.
His East End Life propaganda newspaper seems to have exhausted just about every line of appeal and must be heading for the gallows within months.
Without EEL displaying his mugshot around 400+ times per annum alongside articles canonising his every move; he is likely to find his support wain as the Standard, Wharf and Advertiser publish critical articles on him.
Also, he’ll be lucky to enjoy the high levels of support he received previously from numerous “beamed into the homes of many TH residents” Bangla satellite TV channels.
His habit of “if in doubt redact it” won’t be supported/allowed by the commissioners.
Community groups that haven’t enjoyed his “support” will start to challenge him more openly as new governance and openness is forced on him.
In short his every move will be made under the critical eye of commissioners, the Press, Pickle-appointed senior council staff, and numerous residents and businesses. The #TowerHamletsFiefdom has had it’s day.
I see Dave Hill has finally got round to making a comment http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/nov/10/tower-hamlets-lessons-of-the-lutfur-rahman-affair
Interesting that even a very favourable spin on the report cannot help pointing out that the accusations raised are serious indeed.
And a very cheap jibe at Pickles, which rather undermine’s Dave Hill’s argument. Attacking the man as opposed to the argument is the last bastion of the defeated, and somewhat shows up Hill as the character he is. It’s notable that the PwC report doesn’t attack Rahman in person, despite the fact that the source of many of the problems seems to be him personally.
Tim.
Mark Baynes of “Love Wapping” has a wonderful post about the level of “obfuscation and denial” present in the Mayor’s Office. Great detective work!
Mayor’s office attempts to rewrite history – and fails.
http://lovewapping.org/2014/11/mayor-lutfur-rahmans-office-attempts-to-rewrite-history-and-fails/
Quote re. the summary of the post….
The Bottom Line
So what do we now know from this little trip into web geekery land?
There is clear proof that Mayor Lutfur Rahman publicly stated that he overruled the decisions of Council officers into the allocation of grants and detailed those interventions.
This directly contradicts Mayor Rahman’s subsequent statement to PwC that “…he had not been involved in the detail of awards…”
The archived version of the news / blog page shows that between 7 April 2014 and 8 November 2014 someone edited the page.
The version of the original press release published by Tower Hamlets Council cannot be found on their site as of publishing.