The Covert Councillor has long admired the ability of East London boroughs to elect local politicians of questionable abilities who rarely serve their residents well. One such is the borough of Newham. This past month, the question on the lips of folk living there has been how long Rokhsana Fiaz, Newham’s mayor, can last.
Last year Fiaz took Newham council, which she’s been running since 2018, to an East London employment tribunal. The mayor made allegations of race and sex discrimination against the authority, rather than named individuals, after a meeting with colleagues in 2022. The finer details of that gathering remain unclear, though we do know that Fiaz’s subsequent allegations related to claims arising from the behaviour of councillors who took part. Insiders tell the Covert Councillor that during that meeting criticism was levelled at the budget which Fiaz had proposed at the time.
But after that meeting, it is understood that a report was commissioned into allegations over the mayor’s behaviour. That document remains confidential (the Information Commissioner’s Office upheld Newham Council’s decision not to publish it in order to protect personal data). Fiaz’s critics maintain that this report calls into question the mayor’s conduct, suggesting it fell below the standards expected of someone in her position. However, Fiaz does appear to have received an apology of sorts, as well as costs. The mayor did not respond to a request for comment from the Covert Councillor.
It certainly sounds like there is a highly toxic culture at Newham. So who’s responsible? Buck-passers at the authority blame the Standards Committee (that’s the council panel tasked with ensuring councillors and council officers maintain standards of conduct). In a joint statement from Newham council and Fiaz, sent to councillors on 20th December last year, the local authority said that this committee could “have dealt with things differently” in 2022 (the year of the meeting where the mayor alleged she was the victim of race and sex discrimination).
The council also “unreservedly apologised” for the “distress” experienced by the mayor. The statement gives some detail about the deal agreed under which Fiaz withdrew her claim, including, for reasons that remain unclear, that Newham Council will make a contribution to Fiaz’s legal costs. This means that local residents will be forking out another £30,000 plus VAT on top of an 8.99 per cent increase in council tax from April. The struggling authority is also looking for £51m to avoid bankruptcy.
Not everyone agrees with Fiaz and Newham’s version of events. A blame-game has now ensued between the mayor, senior officers and the committee in question. The Standards Committee chair, councillor Reza Choudhury, resigned after not being consulted on either the deal or the statement. In an email seen by the Covert Councillor, Choudhury called for a special meeting after criticising Newham and Fiaz’s joint statement as “devoid of reality” for implying that the committee was responsible. Choudhury also accuses the council’s monitoring officer, who is responsible for overseeing legal matters in the authority, of blocking him from holding that meeting and said that some officers were “easily leaned on”.
The terms of Fiaz’s settlement agreement with the council were formally approved by Newham’s senior officers, with limited input from councillors. According to one person familiar with the arrangements, council officers set up an informal group of councillors to help them make the right decision, but their advice was largely ignored.
In the meantime, the difficult relationship between Fiaz and her colleagues has continued, despite the formal ceasefire. It looks disastrous for the ruling Labour Party. With Newham imploding and the mayor at the centre of the mess—regardless of who is to blame—will party apparatchiks prevent Fiaz, who was re-elected for a second term in 2022, from standing for a third?
As reported by local outlet Open Newham, the mayor’s time in office has also been dogged by accusations of bullying—which the Covert Councillor understands the mayor has firmly denied. At the same time, the council has spent millions of pounds on settlements with staff. In 2022, the GMB trade union revealed that taxpayers spent £2.8m paying off staff in the authority, while 63 non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) were signed in a three-and-a-half-year period between May 2018 and November 2021.
Your correspondent asked Newham how much money has gone on NDAs since that time. The council confirmed that it has spent in the region of £1m on settlements with NDA clauses in them between 2021-22 and 2023-24, effectively restricting what staff can say about such agreements. The council also confirmed that in the last two financial years 17 complaints were logged against councillors (including three against the mayor) and 14 settlements agreed (though it is not clear how many are in relation to those complaints).
Newham faces a massive dilemma. If Fiaz and Newham council’s version of events is true and is upheld in that as-yet unpublished report from 2022, why has it not been made public with any personal data carefully redacted? If the report doesn't directly address the allegations made against Fiaz at that meeting in 2022 and the concerns about her conduct as mayor, then the council will have serious questions to answer as to why it settled with her at all. Either way, ratepayers have good reason to ask why their money is being spent on spats between councillors.
Despite the “transparency” Fiaz pitched when she first stood for mayor in 2018, some councillors believe that Newham’s decision to settle could put them at risk of litigation by Fiaz, too. Your correspondent wouldn’t be surprised if this saga involves another trip to the courts—at no little time or expense.
As per the introduction, the Covert Councillor is a keen watcher of East London politics (see your correspondent’s report from last year). In February 2024, the government announced a “Best Value Inspection” of the Borough of Tower Hamlets, essentially an intervention to determine whether a council is spending taxpayers’ money wisely. This week we learn that Tower Hamlets considered challenging the government’s decision by seeking a Judicial Review—and spent £85,592 on “pre-action proceedings”, according to the council's response to an FOI request. That is, money spent on proceedings the council never followed through with. The Best Value Inspection did go ahead, with a report published in November last year. The authority took similar action when the government ordered a Best Value Inspection in 2014, but it was denied permission by the High Court, costing the authority £38,735 on that occasion. Blowing taxpayers cash on fruitless “lawfare” surely isn't good value for money.
