|
YOU
COULDN’T MAKE IT UP!
Westminster
City Council Labour Group
February 2005
Introduction
Westminster City Council is London’s rottenest borough.
The
same Tory Councillors who played leading roles in the
illegal “Homes for Votes” scandal and the sale of the
Council’s cemeteries for 15p are now running the
Council.
And
the same Tory Councillors who placed homeless families
and their children in asbestos-ridden tower blocks were
responsible for collecting the Dame Shirley Porter £42
million surcharge – but collected less than a third of
the debt.
The Tories like to say that everything has changed since
the dark days of the late 1980s. But don’t believe a
word of it!
The
Westminster Tories still treat residents with contempt;
still waste Council Tax payers’ money and still cut
vital front-line services ahead of red-tape and
bureaucracy.
With
a General Election just weeks away, it is worth
reminding ourselves of what a Michael Howard
Conservative Government would look like.
Despite the continued scandals, Westminster Council
remains the Tory flagship local authority. Voters in
London and elsewhere should look carefully at what goes
on in Tory Westminster. It is what Michael Howard wants
to do across the UK if he wins the next General
Election.
Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg
Leader of the Labour Group
Westminster City Hall
Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QP
pdimoldenberg@westminster.gov.uk
Shirley Porter – an “old friend and colleague”
In
June 2001, the Tory Leader of Westminster Council,
Councillor Simon Milton, together with Councillor Robert
Davis, Chief Whip, and Councillor Angela Hooper, Chair
of the Council’s Standards Committee, visited Dame
Shirley Porter in Israel and went to dinner with her and
her husband in a Tel Aviv restaurant.
At
that time legal proceedings were still continuing
against Shirley Porter and culminated in the House of
Lords’ judgement against her in December 2001, which
upheld the £42 million District Auditor’s surcharge.
It seems
never to have occurred to these three leading Tory
Councillors that it might be seen as a bit odd to be
wining and dining someone who owed the Council £42
million for the biggest ever scandal in local government
history.
The
Council’s recovery proceedings actually started in 1996,
after the Auditor imposed the surcharge, and the Lords’
proceedings began in 1999, when the Auditor appealed
against the appeal court’s decision in Porter’s favour.
Councillor Simon Milton has, of course, rejected all
criticism of his visit to Dame Shirley, who he calls an
“old friend and colleague”. Indeed he says he
“would be happy to renew my friendship with Dame Shirley
should circumstances permit”.
This, of course, is the same Simon Milton whose Council
accepted £12.3 million from Dame Shirley in full and
final settlement of her £42 million debt to the Council.
Council tenants, motorists and others who owe the
Council money would never be let off with paying only a
third of what they owe.
It is said that we are all judged by who our friends
are. And Tory Council leader Simon Milton certainly has
no qualms about counting the disgraced Shirley Porter as
one of his.
Housing Benefit Shambles
Westminster’s Housing Benefit Service is
in a shambles. So much so that the Local Government
Ombudsman issued two damning reports against the Council
in January 2005.
On both occasions the Ombudsman found maladministration
and ordered the Council to pay compensation for the
injustice caused to residents.
But
the depths to which the privatised Housing Benefit
Service has sunk is summed up by the Ombudsman’s
experience of the large number of complaints he has
received about the Council’s poor performance.
The
Ombudsman says he:
“has received an increasing number of Housing Benefit
complaints against the Council since April 2004 (over
100 so far in 2004/5 compared to 7 altogether in
2003/4)”
The
Ombudsman also discovered that it was taking an average
of 60 days for the Council to assess benefit claims –
far greater than it should take and considerably more
than the Government expects local authorities to take
when dealing with the most vulnerable and disadvantaged
citizens for which it is responsible.
The “Dad’s Army” Council
Not
even residents of Westminster’s smartest squares are
exempt from Tory incompetence.
And the rest of Westminster Council Tax payers picked up
a £75,000 bill as a result.
Residents in Knightsbridge’s Trevor and Montpelier
Squares won a High Court challenge against Tory
Westminster after the Council removed barriers stopping
rat-running motorists without bothering to consult
residents.
At
the High Court hearing, Mr Justice Munby compared
Westminster officials with those in the fictitious Dad’s
Army of Walmington-on-Sea. He ruled that it had failed
to consult residents properly before removing the
bollards, and ordered fresh consultation.
Mr
Justice Munby also told Westminster to pay residents’
legal costs of £48,000, as well as its own costs –
taking the bill to about £75,000.
The
judge criticised the Council’s “lamentable” and
“cavalier” conduct in ignoring court orders to produce
vital evidence for the hearing.
“(Westminster) is not the Walmington-on-Sea UDC making
its first-ever visit to an unfamiliar court,” he said.
“It is an experienced litigant.”
He
added, “It has treated the court, but more importantly
the claimant – which after all represents some of its
own citizens and council tax payers – in a cavalier and
almost contemptuous fashion.”
“Homes for Votes” Whistle blower faces disqualification
In
June 2003, the BBC Today programme broadcast damning
evidence that Tory Westminster City Council had been
dragging its feet on the collection of the £42 million
owed by Dame Shirley Porter for her part in the Homes
for Votes scandal.
One of
the original Homes for Votes’ whistle blowers in 1988,
Labour Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, had worked closely
with the BBC to find the evidence. He also handed over
to the Council vital new information that enabled the
Council to take legal action against those who were
helping Porter hide her money away in off shore trusts
and bank accounts.
But
what did the Council do after its failure to act quickly
was exposed to the nation? The Council’s Chief Executive
reported Councillor Dimoldenberg to the local government
Standards Board and he now faces disqualification or
suspension from the Council for “bringing his office and
the Council into disrepute” for allegedly leaking
confidential information to the media.
Yet
strangely enough, as soon as the Council’s failures had
been exposed by the BBC, the Council’s legal activity
intensified dramatically. Over the next 6 weeks, the
Council spent nearly £200,000 and went to court 13 times
– this compares with expenditure over the previous 18
months of just over £400,000 and 23 court appearances.
And a year to the day later, Shirley Porter paid the
Council £12.3 million (after previously claiming that
she was down to her last £300,000).
The public outcry at the Standards Board complaint
against Councillor Dimoldenberg has been unanimous and
is best summed up by the Editorial in local paper, “The
Wood and Vale” on 19 November 2004,
“There are many who believe that had it
not been for the continuing media interest in the
missing millions, Westminster’s Conservatives would have
felt much less challenged to act against the former
Council Leader, who despite her fall from grace, is
still greatly admired by former Tory colleagues”.
“Can
the Council’s campaign against self-confessed whistle
blower Cllr Paul Dimoldenberg then be seen as anything
other than a witch hunt? It is almost as if he is being
punished for acting in the public interest. It is
certainly fair to say that Cllr Dimoldenberg has never
been forgiven by the Tories for joining the whistle
blowers who originally exposed the ‘Homes-for-Votes’
scandal, in which some of them were embedded”.
“It
will bring no credit to anyone to censure an individual
who was clearly motivated by a deep sense of injustice,
and who behaved in a manner that would be approved of by
the vast majority of taxpayers”
“Anyone who believes that the councillor’s contribution
towards the recovery of the money was not motivated by
anything other than the greater good, is being churlish
in the extreme. And even if he has been guilty of a
technical breach of council guidelines, the success of
democracy depends on singular individuals like Cllr
Dimoldenberg being prepared to challenge the status quo.
When such an individual also has the high moral ground,
it seems ludicrous even to suggest that they should be
deprived of their democratic mandate”.
“If it
is to retain its credibility, the Standards Board will
surely kick this complaint into touch. It will be sad
day for democracy if it does not”.
Tory
priority – A new £23,000 Trophy Cabinet
Westminster Tories are always pleading poverty and
demanding more money from the Labour Government to pay
for basic services.
But
that didn’t stop them spending £23,000 on a new,
bullet-proof display cabinet for the Council’s
collection of silverware.
The
Tory justification for this spending is that the Council
has “one of the finest collections of civic plate in the
country” and that the new bullet-proof trophy cabinet
would give people the opportunity to “truly appreciate
the civic treasures”.
FACT
What
you could buy for £23,000:
Education
A
newly qualified teacher including inner London
allowance:
salary £22,059
92,000
A4 80-page exercise books: 25p each
Health
One
newly qualified nurse, D Grade: salary £23,000
Two
high dependency ventilators to assist patients with
breathing problems: £11,500 each
Care
for the Elderly
·
11 stair lifts: £2,000 each
·
10,454 meals on wheels’ deliveries: £2.20
each
The
“Something for Nothing” Council
Westminster Tories want to abolish the Council Tax – and
they have the nerve to say that they can do it without
damaging local services!
They
say they can save money through “efficiency programmes”
and privatisation. But the reality is that services are
and will be cut so that Westminster Tories can win their
annual battle with Tory Wandsworth on who can set the
lowest Council Tax.
And
that stark reality is already hitting home. In January
2005, Westminster Tories decided to unilaterally axe
their £78,000 grant to the West London Day Centre in
Marylebone. For the last 30 years the Day Centre, run by
the Methodist Church, has provided warmth, food,
friendship and health advice to homeless men and women
who are forced to sleep rough on the streets of London’s
wealthiest boroughs.
As Day
Centre worker Paul Thompson told the local press,
“Some of them have been coming here
for many years. They are often lonely, suffering from
addictions or in trouble with the law. It’s a lifeline
for them”
Everyone knows that there is no such thing as a “free
lunch” or “something for nothing”. If the Council does
not charge a Council Tax then residents will either get
few, if any, services or charges will be introduced for
even the basic services, like using a public toilet.
But
the Tories are unabashed. They have made no secret of
the reason for their heartless strategy. They know that
the homeless do not have a vote. And if they did have a
vote they wouldn’t vote Conservative.
That’s
why the streets in the posh parts of Westminster have
hanging flower baskets on the lampposts. Tory voters
have told the Council that they like hanging flower
baskets. And what Tory voters want, Tory voters get.
But if
you are a rough sleeper and one of Westminster’s most
vulnerable citizens, your services are axed.
FACT:
In December 2004, John Deacon, who runs the West London
Day Centre, was shortlisted by Westminster City Council
for the Local Leadership Awards for “outstanding work in
helping to improve the quality of life for fellow
members of the local community”. One month later the
Council axed the Day Centre’s grant.
Changing Lightbulbs
Q.
How many
people does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. In
Tory Westminster it takes 10; one electrician to fit it
and the rest to
tell him how to do it.
Eighty
year old Henry Bernard lives in Hereford Road, Bayswater
and Westminster City Council has “outsourced” the
management of his leasehold flat to Pinnacle Housing.
You
might think that changing a lightbulb would be cheap and
simple. But you would be wrong.
According to Mr Bernard, this is how it works in Tory
Westminster:
1.
Residents
inform Pinnacle that the bulb needs replacing
2.
Pinnacle
calls its repairs contractor, Greens
3.
Greens send
a sub-contractor to assess the job
4.
The
electrician reports back to Greens
5.
Greens
contact Pinnacle with the report
6.
Pinnacle
gives the go-ahead for the work
7.
Greens tells
the electrician to replace the bulb
8.
Greens tells
Pinnacle that the job has been done
9.
Pinnacle
informs Westminster that the work has been done
10
Westminster
sends the bill to leaseholders
Leaseholders in Mr Bernard’s block of flats were charged
an extra 28% for repair “on costs” this year.
You
can’t help thinking that the “on costs” would be much
less if they cut out the red-tape and just got on with
the job.
50p to
spend a penny
Westminster Tories want to cut the Council Tax to zero.
And the only way to do that is to cut services and
increase charges for services.
To
achieve their barmy “no tax” plan the Tories have found
a loophole in the law which allows Councils to lease
public toilets to private contractors who are then able
to charge for “spending a penny”.
Now,
in Tory Westminster, it will it soon cost 50p to use
public toilets in the busy Whitehall area, raking in
£236,000 to the Council. The three public toilets where
it will cost 50p to spend a penny are in Whitehall
Street (next to the Houses of Parliament), Broad
Sanctuary (near the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre)
and Westminster Bridge (by the River Thames).
And
not content with demanding 50p to spend a penny, the
Tories have started to close public toilets in busy
shopping areas.
Toilet
gates at the Paddington Street toilets were padlocked on
1 November 2004 and were not scheduled to be unlocked
until 1 April 2005. The toilets are just a few yards
from the busy Marylebone High Street, a favourite
location for local shoppers, visitors and people working
in the area. The Council claimed there was not much use
of the toilets in the winter months!
But thanks to a massive public campaign, led by The
Marylebone Association, Waitrose and Labour Councillors,
the Council was forced to do a U-turn by opening the
public toilets on 1 February and promising to keep them
open all year in future.
As
Denis Johnson of the Marylebone Association told the
local press:
“I
don’t understand why people don’t need to go to the
toilet in the winter. The citizens of Marylebone had
this very useful convenience which they paid for and
they want it back immediately”.
“It
costs a fraction of a penny in the council tax and
citizens are quite happy to pay for it because they want
these services in the community”.
Egg on
his Mace
Westminster’s Tory Chief Whip, Councillor Robert Davis,
is also Chairman of the London Mayor’s Association and
loves the “pomp and circumstance” of civic regalia. He
was also totally taken in by Robin Cooper, a well-known
prankster, who conned him into including his crazy
designs for the “Modern Mace” in the London Mayors
Association Spring 2004 newsletter.
The
sketches include a mace with “profile of Lord Haverby”
while another incorporates a “bow-tie” and a “crown of
Tocom”. The full details are in “The Timewaster
Letters”, which includes the letters between Councillor
Davis and Mr Cooper.
In his
first letter to Chief Whip Davis, Mr Cooper wrote:
“I
have always taken a keen interest in civics and have
become fascinated with the glorious tradition of perhaps
the mayor’s most important civic item – the mace. I have
some significant changes to the design of the mace,
which I feel could be nationally adopted. I would love
to show you my designs, and wonder if this is possible?”
Mr
Cooper received a reply one week later. Mr Davis wrote:
“I
would be happy to discuss the question of the mace and
suggest you contact me.”
Mr
Cooper replied:
“I am
glad you are interested to hear of my new designs for
the mace. Unfortunately I am unable to call you at the
moment, as I am recovering from a rather nasty accident
I suffered while visiting a glue plant.
“That
aside, I have taken the liberty of enclosing some of my
sketches, and would very much appreciate your thoughts.
You will note that I have worked hard to maintain some
of the traditional elements of the mace, whilst infusing
it with a more modern feel”.
And
Councillor Davis’ reaction to being conned so
comprehensively?
“I am
quite proud to be in the book really”,
he told the local press.
Resign – when the Chief Executive tells you to
Westminster’s Chief Executive, Peter
Rogers, knew that he had made a big mistake when he
reported Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg to the Standards
Board after the Labour Councillor had “blown the
whistle” on the Council’s failure to take effective
action to recover the £42 million owed by Shirley
Porter.
Indeed, he offered to withdraw his complaint to the
Standards Board. But on one condition: Councillor
Dimoldenberg would have to give the Chief Executive a
signed, undated letter of resignation from the Council
to be used by the Chief Executive whenever he considered
that Councillor Dimoldenberg had breached the Code of
Conduct!
Of
course, the “offer” was rejected out of hand.
As the
“Wood and Vale” editorial argued on 26 November 2004:
“Effectively, a democratically elected councillor would
have been serving at the whim of an unelected and, as
far as the public is concerned, largely anonymous
official. The people who exercised their democratic
right by voting Councillor Dimoldenberg into office
would have had no idea that their councillor’s future
depended on the grace and favour of a bureaucrat.
“Such
a situation would be a travesty of everything a
democracy stands for. Given Councillor Dimoldenberg’s
reputation for integrity, it is mind-boggling that
anyone in authority really believed that such a seedy
plan could ever succeed. That, however, is not the
issue.
“This
was a crude attempt to interfere with the democratic
process, and it heaps nothing but disdain on the
individuals concerned and the council as a whole.”
So
far, no action has been taken by the Council to
discipline the Chief Executive for his outrageous and
probably illegal “offer”. |
