The Unite Defence (16/11/14)
I was amused by this report from the BBC web site in which Tower Hamlets council responds to allegations of being a 'rotten' London borough by employing what I would describe as the 'Unite' defence.
By which I mean that the Council is trying to shift the argument away from the real issues of cronyism and political misbehaviour, by saying there is no evidence of criminality or fraud.
But there is clearly something far wrong at the way Tower Hamlets is being run, if large sums of public money were being awarded to local groups who had not even made a funding request to the council to begin with - exactly how can that happen?
Tower Hamlets Council 'culture of cronyism' criticised
Lutfur Rahman has denied all allegations of financial irregularities
A report into allegations of fraud at Tower Hamlets Council reveals a "culture of cronyism", the government has said.
The investigation has prompted Community Secretary Eric Pickles to send in three commissioners to work at the council for three years.
Auditors said the council grant system lacked transparency and some groups got cash without applying for it.
The east London authority said it "regretted" flaws in its processes.
But it added the report showed "no evidence of criminality or fraud".
A report into allegations of fraud at Tower Hamlets Council reveals a "culture of cronyism", the government has said.
The investigation has prompted Community Secretary Eric Pickles to send in three commissioners to work at the council for three years.
Auditors said the council grant system lacked transparency and some groups got cash without applying for it.
The east London authority said it "regretted" flaws in its processes.
But it added the report showed "no evidence of criminality or fraud".
'Rotten boroughs'
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was instructed to investigate "allegations about governance failures, poor financial management and possible fraud" by Mr Pickles.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was instructed to investigate "allegations about governance failures, poor financial management and possible fraud" by Mr Pickles.
Eric Pickles instructed the auditors to investigate the financial regulation of the authority
It follows allegations in a BBC Panorama investigation that directly-elected mayor Lutfur Rahman diverted charity money for political support.
Mr Rahman has denied all allegations of electoral malpractice.
Mr Pickles said he had no choice but to appoint three commissioners to work with the council until March 2017 as there was "no place for rotten boroughs in 21st Century Britain".
The report highlighted the "954 Fund" of £954,000 in surplus monies identified in 2012.
It follows allegations in a BBC Panorama investigation that directly-elected mayor Lutfur Rahman diverted charity money for political support.
Mr Rahman has denied all allegations of electoral malpractice.
Mr Pickles said he had no choice but to appoint three commissioners to work with the council until March 2017 as there was "no place for rotten boroughs in 21st Century Britain".
The report highlighted the "954 Fund" of £954,000 in surplus monies identified in 2012.
Analysis
By Karl Mercer, BBC London political correspondent
So three commissioners are to be sent in to Tower Hamlets. They will be the eyes and ears of Eric Pickles, reporting to him every six months and overseeing large parts of the work of this east London council.
They will effectively be in charge of handing out grants, of selling unwanted council property, of senior appointments and of many contracts the borough enters into.
The last time the government stepped in in such a way was in Doncaster back in 2010. And it won't be a fleeting visit.
They will be there until March 2017, unwelcome visitors with the right to oversee pretty much every move of the borough's directly elected mayor, Lutfur Rahman. Or at least, that's the theory.
Tower Hamlets has two weeks to respond to the proposals and it's unlikely to go quietly. And of course, this being Tower Hamlets, a legal challenge may well be round the corner.
It was found to have "no open application process at all, with monies targeted at member discretion" and in some cases grants were awarded to organisations ruled ineligible.'Possibility of manipulation'
The report also found that a proposal to award money to lunch clubs for Jewish, Sikh and Hindu communities resulted in £99,212 being awarded to Bangladeshi or Somali groups, none of which had applied for the money.
The report also highlights the controversial sale of Poplar Town Hall to Dreamstar Ltd in 2011.
The authority accepted a late, lower bid from the company, which was found to have an "association with the mayor", despite being advised to accept an offer from another bidder.
Dreamstar's owner had helped the mayor in his election campaign,
PWC said: "The acceptance of a late bid in whatever form created the possibility of manipulation, which could have been avoided or significantly reduced, either by excluding the late bid... or by delaying the opening of all bids."
Dreamstar won the contract race but did not have the finances available to purchase the lease within the four-week timeframe.
It also asked for and received the council's consent to change the contract to sub-let and to change the use of the listed property.
This was granted at the discretion of the planning officer, rather than referred to the development planning committee, as would be expected.
PWC said the actions showed the "existing governance arrangements have weaknesses".
Addressing the House of Commons, Mr Pickles said: "It paints a deeply concerning picture of... denial, secrecy the breakdown of democratic scrutiny and accountability, and a culture of cronyism risking the corrupt spending of public funds."
'Residents let down'
Mr Pickles said he had proposed an intervention package which included:
The commissioners overseeing the function of grant making
A written agreement must be in place with the commissioners before property is sold
The council will not appoint or designate any statutory officer without Mr Pickles' approval
The council has 14 days to consider and respond to the proposals.
Mr Pickles said: "The report has cost just under £1m which will be borne by the council. It would have been much cheaper had the mayoral administration not been so obstructive.
"In all of this it is the residents of Tower Hamlets that have been let down."
In a statement, the council said: "In our view there is no evidence that these flaws of process are 'regular or endemic', meaning that there is no failure to comply with our best value duty."
The report also found that in response to the BBC Panorama programme The Mayor and Our Money, the authority spent £101,479 getting advice from law firm Taylor Wessing and PR consultants Champollion.
A number of readers drew my attention to the story below from the BBC web site in which the Unite trade union claims to have been vindicated over the 'vote rigging' scandal in Falkirk - that blew up into a much wider industrial conflict involving the giant Ineos plant and the local Unite convener, Stevie Deans.
Now I don't know of anyone who ever accused the Unite convener of criminality because he seems like a decent enough chap to me, but there seems little doubt that Stevie Deans was guilty of wrongdoing by abusing his time-off arrangements with his employer (Ineos) - a civil not a criminal matter, of course.
In effect Ineos claimed that Stevie Deans was working on Labour Party business when he was being paid by the company to represent the interests of the workforce - and Ineos management instigated an investigation to get to the bottom of things which was duly followed by a disciplinary hearing.
Nothing to get too excited about there, you might think, but the union's reaction was to call a strike which was a completely crazy and irresponsible move especially when the agreed procedures provided Stevie Deans with every opportunity to defend himself and explain his behaviour.
Instead the whole business escalated out of control and in the end Stevie Deans resigned from his job rather than face the charge that when he was supposed to be doing what was best for workers at Ineos - he was devoting much of his time to party politics and the internal affairs of the Labour Party.
So the real issue was never about criminality which is a complete red herring.
As the old Labour Party slogan use to say, the real issue was always about knowing right from wrong - resisting the temptation to play party politics, and refusing to take risks with people's jobs and livelihoods.
Falkirk row: Police say 'no evidence of criminality' in Unite emails
Mr Pickles said he had proposed an intervention package which included:
The commissioners overseeing the function of grant making
A written agreement must be in place with the commissioners before property is sold
The council will not appoint or designate any statutory officer without Mr Pickles' approval
The council has 14 days to consider and respond to the proposals.
Mr Pickles said: "The report has cost just under £1m which will be borne by the council. It would have been much cheaper had the mayoral administration not been so obstructive.
"In all of this it is the residents of Tower Hamlets that have been let down."
In a statement, the council said: "In our view there is no evidence that these flaws of process are 'regular or endemic', meaning that there is no failure to comply with our best value duty."
The report also found that in response to the BBC Panorama programme The Mayor and Our Money, the authority spent £101,479 getting advice from law firm Taylor Wessing and PR consultants Champollion.
Right from Wrong (26 January 2014)
A number of readers drew my attention to the story below from the BBC web site in which the Unite trade union claims to have been vindicated over the 'vote rigging' scandal in Falkirk - that blew up into a much wider industrial conflict involving the giant Ineos plant and the local Unite convener, Stevie Deans.
Now I don't know of anyone who ever accused the Unite convener of criminality because he seems like a decent enough chap to me, but there seems little doubt that Stevie Deans was guilty of wrongdoing by abusing his time-off arrangements with his employer (Ineos) - a civil not a criminal matter, of course.
In effect Ineos claimed that Stevie Deans was working on Labour Party business when he was being paid by the company to represent the interests of the workforce - and Ineos management instigated an investigation to get to the bottom of things which was duly followed by a disciplinary hearing.
Nothing to get too excited about there, you might think, but the union's reaction was to call a strike which was a completely crazy and irresponsible move especially when the agreed procedures provided Stevie Deans with every opportunity to defend himself and explain his behaviour.
Instead the whole business escalated out of control and in the end Stevie Deans resigned from his job rather than face the charge that when he was supposed to be doing what was best for workers at Ineos - he was devoting much of his time to party politics and the internal affairs of the Labour Party.
So the real issue was never about criminality which is a complete red herring.
As the old Labour Party slogan use to say, the real issue was always about knowing right from wrong - resisting the temptation to play party politics, and refusing to take risks with people's jobs and livelihoods.
Falkirk row: Police say 'no evidence of criminality' in Unite emails
The controversy centres on claims the Unite union tried to fix the selection of a parliamentary candidate
Police have found "no evidence of any criminality" in emails sent by a former Grangemouth union convener.
Stevie Deans, who was a full time Unite official at the petrochemicals complex, had been accused of being involved in vote-rigging in Falkirk.
He was later cleared by an internal investigation by the Labour Party.
The Unite union, which called the complaints "vexatious", said it had been vindicated in consistently saying that no wrongdoing had taken place.
Mr Deans left his job at the Grangemouth oil refinery last year and decided not to seek re-election as chairman of Labour's constituency party in Falkirk.
The Falkirk seat is held by Eric Joyce, who resigned from the Labour party and now represents the constituency as an independent.
Labour's selection process for next year's general election has been mired in controversy, with allegations that Unite members had been signed up to the Falkirk Labour Party to ensure the union's favoured candidate was selected.
Police have found "no evidence of any criminality" in emails sent by a former Grangemouth union convener.
Stevie Deans, who was a full time Unite official at the petrochemicals complex, had been accused of being involved in vote-rigging in Falkirk.
He was later cleared by an internal investigation by the Labour Party.
The Unite union, which called the complaints "vexatious", said it had been vindicated in consistently saying that no wrongdoing had taken place.
Mr Deans left his job at the Grangemouth oil refinery last year and decided not to seek re-election as chairman of Labour's constituency party in Falkirk.
The Falkirk seat is held by Eric Joyce, who resigned from the Labour party and now represents the constituency as an independent.
Labour's selection process for next year's general election has been mired in controversy, with allegations that Unite members had been signed up to the Falkirk Labour Party to ensure the union's favoured candidate was selected.
Stevie Deans was at the heart of the Falkirk candidate selection claims
In September, Labour said it had cleared the Unite union of trying to rig the selection process.
It said the decision was made after "key evidence" was "withdrawn".
But in November, The Sunday Times newspaper said it had seen 1,000 emails to and from Mr Deans, which it said revealed the full extent of the plot to influence selection of the candidate.
Its story also included extracts of the internal Labour report in which Labour officials said there were "deliberate attempts to frustrate" interviews with some of the key witnesses.
Police Scotland, which earlier this year dropped an investigation into the Falkirk allegations, was called in to study the emails, which were passed on by Mr Deans's employer Ineos.
A spokesperson for Ineos, which operates the huge Grangemouth oil refinery and petrochemicals plant, said: "The Ineos investigation of Mr Deans was related to the misuse of Ineos procedures and systems.
"Mr Deans resigned prior to the final stage of the disciplinary process. The email cache was referred to the police and the information commissioner based on legal advice to protect the company."
A spokesman for the force said: "Following information received alleging misconduct by a member of staff at the Grangemouth refinery, a Police Scotland enquiry was undertaken.
"This enquiry has now concluded and there is no evidence of any criminality."
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said: "Unite has been vindicated in consistently saying that no wrongdoing or criminality has taken place and welcome Police Scotland's conclusion.
"It is shameful that the police's time has been wasted by vexatious complaints and their attentions diverted from catching real criminals and solving real crimes."
He added: "Stevie Deans is a decent and honourable man who has been smeared and hounded with a callous disregard for him and his family by those who should know better.
"The anti-union hysteria whipped up by certain sections of the media and their friends to pursue a spiteful agenda has been shocking. Their witch-hunt has been exposed to be without foundation."
Dan Hodges is still a Labour Party supporter, as far as I know, although he did resign his membership of the party recently - so Dan's support is not unqualified and nor is he afraid of calling a spade as spade.
Which he does in this opinion piece about Unite and the 'vote-rigging' scandal in Falkirk - which became caught up in the nasty industrial dispute at Grangemouth that came within a whisker of the plant's closure.
Party politics and industrial relations are a toxic mixture that should be kept apart at all times - but the events of recent weeks are damaging to all concerned and Dan Hodges is right to say that Unite's behaviour has made a mockery of Ed Miliband's pledge to be the champion of a new politics.
Unite and Len McCluskey are completely unapologetic, defiant even, about their behaviour and seem to be saying that they would do the same again - given the chance.
In other words the kind of machine politics that Ed Miliband promised to get rid of - is alive and well in the UK's largest trade union which doubles up, of course, as the Labour Party's biggest financial donor.
Falkirk's sordid cover-up damages the credibility of the unions, the Labour Party, and Ed Miliband
By Dan Hodges
Last month the Labour Party announced that it was halting its inquiry into the selection scandal in Falkirk. Over the weekend, thanks to the leaking of over a thousand emails to the Sunday Times, we know what that inquiry would have uncovered, had it been allowed to proceed.
The first thing it would have discovered is that the Unite trade union was indeed attempting to fix the selection on behalf of its favoured candidate Karie Murphy. In one of the “smoking” emails, Murphy expresses her desire for senior Unite official Stevie Deans to be elected “procedure secretary” for her ballot because it was “the best way to control the process”. Deans success in securing the chairmanship of the local party was described by Murphy in a separate email as nothing less than “a masterstroke considering the influence the chair has in a selection process”.
The second thing the inquiry would have discovered is that once Ed Miliband finally decided to take action over the scandal, Unite began to draw up a strategy to force the Labour leader to back-off. One idea the union came up with was to try to drag former Prime Minister Gordon Brown into the affair by getting him to intercede with his successor directly. One email from Howard Beckett, the Union’s director of legal and membership services, suggests “We will prepare for an approach to Gordon Brown wherein we ask Gordon to consider the potential damage this could do and request GB [Gordon Brown] do contact Ed M[iliband] in private”.
A second idea was to start drawing up information to smear Unite’s internal opponents. In another email Beckett wrote “Comms will prepare the nasty stuff we know of individuals in the Labour Party”. In the end, neither the approach to Brown, nor the plan to smear Unite’s opponents, were acted upon.
The third thing the inquiry would have discovered is how Unite directly intervened in the evidence of those who had claimed to witness attempts to rig the selection ballot. In particular, Unite focused on evidence supplied by members of the Kanes family, who were at the heart of allegations that people in the constituency had been signed up to the Labour Party without their consent.
Howard Beckett agreed to draw up “statements on behalf of the Kanes rebutting allegations in the report as to what they are alleged to have said”. He added that “Stevie [Deans] will arrange for these to be signed”. In response, Deans wrote “I’m happy with the draft letter and can get this to the Kane family and get it posted tonight”.
It appears that it was this letter, in which the Kanes claimed “We have no complaints against either Stevie Deans or Karie Murphy”, that was the catalyst for Labour for terminating its investigation, and reinstating the Deans and Murphy to the Labour party.
There is one other thing the inquiry would have uncovered. Alongside the ballot rigging, and the plan to pressure the leader of the Labour Party, and the alleged manipulation of evidence, it would have found that throughout the whole affair the Unite union lied, and lied and lied again.
The union said it had not been involved in attempting to fix the selection, when it had. It said it wanted an open investigation into the allegations, when in truth it was drawing up a strategy for getting Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to back off from investigating. It repeatedly claimed it had nothing to hide. But in fact it had lots to hide, not least over a thousand damning emails.
Back in June, when the scandal first broke, Ed Miliband gave a solemn pledge. "Let nobody be in any doubt, there is only going to be one outcome to this: the Labour Party will act in a way that upholds the integrity of our party, the integrity of our party members and the integrity of ordinary trade union members. I will not allow the good name of the Labour Party to be undermined by the behaviour of a few individuals,” he said.
This morning it’s not the good name of the Labour Party that is on the line, but that of Miliband himself. Unite have made a mockery of him, his party, and his pledge to be the agent of a “new politics”.
Labour sources point to the fact that Karie Murphy has withdrawn her name from consideration for the seat. And the Falkirk constituency remains in “special measures”, effectively in control of national party headquarters. A Labour spokesman said “Information has been passed to the police, and it’s right and proper for us to wait and see how that investigation proceeds. Once it has been concluded we will make a judgment on whether further action is taken”.
But the Labour Party themselves passed information to the police earlier in the affair. And on that occasion it did not prevent them from running their own internal investigation, or suspending party members.
Labour’s leader must reopen the investigation, suspend the individuals at the centre of the scandal and clear up this while sordid mess once and for all. It’s no longer about the rigging of one CLP selection. It’s about Ed Miliband’s credibility as a leader, and as a potential Prime Minister.
In September, Labour said it had cleared the Unite union of trying to rig the selection process.
It said the decision was made after "key evidence" was "withdrawn".
But in November, The Sunday Times newspaper said it had seen 1,000 emails to and from Mr Deans, which it said revealed the full extent of the plot to influence selection of the candidate.
Its story also included extracts of the internal Labour report in which Labour officials said there were "deliberate attempts to frustrate" interviews with some of the key witnesses.
Police Scotland, which earlier this year dropped an investigation into the Falkirk allegations, was called in to study the emails, which were passed on by Mr Deans's employer Ineos.
A spokesperson for Ineos, which operates the huge Grangemouth oil refinery and petrochemicals plant, said: "The Ineos investigation of Mr Deans was related to the misuse of Ineos procedures and systems.
"Mr Deans resigned prior to the final stage of the disciplinary process. The email cache was referred to the police and the information commissioner based on legal advice to protect the company."
A spokesman for the force said: "Following information received alleging misconduct by a member of staff at the Grangemouth refinery, a Police Scotland enquiry was undertaken.
"This enquiry has now concluded and there is no evidence of any criminality."
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said: "Unite has been vindicated in consistently saying that no wrongdoing or criminality has taken place and welcome Police Scotland's conclusion.
"It is shameful that the police's time has been wasted by vexatious complaints and their attentions diverted from catching real criminals and solving real crimes."
He added: "Stevie Deans is a decent and honourable man who has been smeared and hounded with a callous disregard for him and his family by those who should know better.
"The anti-union hysteria whipped up by certain sections of the media and their friends to pursue a spiteful agenda has been shocking. Their witch-hunt has been exposed to be without foundation."
Calamitous Cover Up (2 November 2014)
Which he does in this opinion piece about Unite and the 'vote-rigging' scandal in Falkirk - which became caught up in the nasty industrial dispute at Grangemouth that came within a whisker of the plant's closure.
Party politics and industrial relations are a toxic mixture that should be kept apart at all times - but the events of recent weeks are damaging to all concerned and Dan Hodges is right to say that Unite's behaviour has made a mockery of Ed Miliband's pledge to be the champion of a new politics.
Unite and Len McCluskey are completely unapologetic, defiant even, about their behaviour and seem to be saying that they would do the same again - given the chance.
In other words the kind of machine politics that Ed Miliband promised to get rid of - is alive and well in the UK's largest trade union which doubles up, of course, as the Labour Party's biggest financial donor.
By Dan Hodges
Last month the Labour Party announced that it was halting its inquiry into the selection scandal in Falkirk. Over the weekend, thanks to the leaking of over a thousand emails to the Sunday Times, we know what that inquiry would have uncovered, had it been allowed to proceed.
The first thing it would have discovered is that the Unite trade union was indeed attempting to fix the selection on behalf of its favoured candidate Karie Murphy. In one of the “smoking” emails, Murphy expresses her desire for senior Unite official Stevie Deans to be elected “procedure secretary” for her ballot because it was “the best way to control the process”. Deans success in securing the chairmanship of the local party was described by Murphy in a separate email as nothing less than “a masterstroke considering the influence the chair has in a selection process”.
The second thing the inquiry would have discovered is that once Ed Miliband finally decided to take action over the scandal, Unite began to draw up a strategy to force the Labour leader to back-off. One idea the union came up with was to try to drag former Prime Minister Gordon Brown into the affair by getting him to intercede with his successor directly. One email from Howard Beckett, the Union’s director of legal and membership services, suggests “We will prepare for an approach to Gordon Brown wherein we ask Gordon to consider the potential damage this could do and request GB [Gordon Brown] do contact Ed M[iliband] in private”.
A second idea was to start drawing up information to smear Unite’s internal opponents. In another email Beckett wrote “Comms will prepare the nasty stuff we know of individuals in the Labour Party”. In the end, neither the approach to Brown, nor the plan to smear Unite’s opponents, were acted upon.
The third thing the inquiry would have discovered is how Unite directly intervened in the evidence of those who had claimed to witness attempts to rig the selection ballot. In particular, Unite focused on evidence supplied by members of the Kanes family, who were at the heart of allegations that people in the constituency had been signed up to the Labour Party without their consent.
Howard Beckett agreed to draw up “statements on behalf of the Kanes rebutting allegations in the report as to what they are alleged to have said”. He added that “Stevie [Deans] will arrange for these to be signed”. In response, Deans wrote “I’m happy with the draft letter and can get this to the Kane family and get it posted tonight”.
It appears that it was this letter, in which the Kanes claimed “We have no complaints against either Stevie Deans or Karie Murphy”, that was the catalyst for Labour for terminating its investigation, and reinstating the Deans and Murphy to the Labour party.
There is one other thing the inquiry would have uncovered. Alongside the ballot rigging, and the plan to pressure the leader of the Labour Party, and the alleged manipulation of evidence, it would have found that throughout the whole affair the Unite union lied, and lied and lied again.
The union said it had not been involved in attempting to fix the selection, when it had. It said it wanted an open investigation into the allegations, when in truth it was drawing up a strategy for getting Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to back off from investigating. It repeatedly claimed it had nothing to hide. But in fact it had lots to hide, not least over a thousand damning emails.
Back in June, when the scandal first broke, Ed Miliband gave a solemn pledge. "Let nobody be in any doubt, there is only going to be one outcome to this: the Labour Party will act in a way that upholds the integrity of our party, the integrity of our party members and the integrity of ordinary trade union members. I will not allow the good name of the Labour Party to be undermined by the behaviour of a few individuals,” he said.
This morning it’s not the good name of the Labour Party that is on the line, but that of Miliband himself. Unite have made a mockery of him, his party, and his pledge to be the agent of a “new politics”.
Labour sources point to the fact that Karie Murphy has withdrawn her name from consideration for the seat. And the Falkirk constituency remains in “special measures”, effectively in control of national party headquarters. A Labour spokesman said “Information has been passed to the police, and it’s right and proper for us to wait and see how that investigation proceeds. Once it has been concluded we will make a judgment on whether further action is taken”.
But the Labour Party themselves passed information to the police earlier in the affair. And on that occasion it did not prevent them from running their own internal investigation, or suspending party members.
Labour’s leader must reopen the investigation, suspend the individuals at the centre of the scandal and clear up this while sordid mess once and for all. It’s no longer about the rigging of one CLP selection. It’s about Ed Miliband’s credibility as a leader, and as a potential Prime Minister.
