More on that Court Case

It appears that the embarrassment caused by the mayor taking her own council to court has resulted in a settlement. ACAS were drafted in to assist and an agreement between Fiaz and the council has been reached.

Fiaz alleged that the council was responsible for the actions of “some councillors”. It was the council, not the Labour Group nor the Labour Party, it seems, who was responsible. This was in reference to a meeting in December 2022 and their behaviour was such that Fiaz was the ‘victim’ of both race and sex discrimination.

Put another way, Fiaz got into an argument with Labour councillors on the committee and lost. Members of the committee wanted information about the mayor’s plans to tackle the deficit. It was not forthcoming. Fiaz left in a huff.

There were cross-complaints between the mayor and a councillor which led to an ‘independent’ investigation and a costs of several tens of thousands of pounds. This report, paid for by the public, has not been made available to the public.

We also recall that certain councillors also alleged bullying behaviour by the mayor at the meeting, (and this was in addition to allegations about her bullying staff members and heading an organization suffused with institutional bullying). This came on top of a complaint by multiple councillors that was sent to the Labour Party, who subsequently did nothing.

Fiaz is the senior elected person at Newham; she leads (in name at least), the majority Labour Group. She had a row with some of her Labour colleagues, an occurrence that is not unheard of in politics. They were not prepared to be fobbed off with her excuses for the parlous state of the council finances.

She however, had two aces up her sleeve. As a woman of Asian origin, she could claim discrimination based upon both sex and race. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or whether her allegations would hold up in court. By playing her victim card, the highest-ranking politician on the council with a reputation for bullying and obfuscation can claim to be the victim of harsh words from her junior colleagues.

This might not make sense to any normal person, but it is the world we live in.

The council have not conceded this point, although there is a sop in the statement below to the effect that “the Standards Advisory Committee could have dealt with things differently”. Just what this means is not specified, anything “could have been dealt with differently”, but it does give an opening for the following where the council “has unreservedly apologised to the Mayor for the distress that she experienced”. A sop, for “the distress that she experienced”, not for any wrongdoing on the part of the council.

Needless to say, Fiaz will wave the apology around claiming vindication. Most people won’t realise that it is a non-apology. “We’re sorry that your feelings were hurt.”

Other observers might have felt that “grow up and do your job” might have been more appropriate, but they don’t have to keep working with her for the next 18 months, (or less if the senior staff can find new jobs).

We also learn in the statement that Newham Council will pay up to £30,000 plus VAT for Fiaz’s legal costs. This is understandable in that it will allow council officers to get on with the real work without the distraction of a legal case that would drag on through 2025.

However, this is the money residents have paid in taxes. In defending the case (and in additional officer time) Newham will have paid at least as much and probably double that figure. Fiaz’s behaviour is costing the council and the tax-payer more and more money.

Quite how this was authorised is a bit of a puzzle.

We understand that officers invited two opposition and three Labour councillors to participate in an ad hoc committee to agree the terms.

There may well be a constitutional precedent for this, but we don’t know what it is. Frankly, we are surprised that this was a decision taken without the agreement of full council. Given that there was a council meeting on 16th December, it does not seem too burdensome to suggest that they could have agreed the creation of an ad hoc committee at that meeting. 

If there is authority for their action, all Newham have to do is publish the authority which they relied upon.

What is more likely, we suspect, is that the fait accompli will be presented to a future council meeting for a post facto ratification.

The additional spending of £100,000 (our estimate of the total costs) is small beer in the light of an overspend of £50 million, but it is still a lot of money to a normal Newham resident, especially as it comes on top of the money and time expended in the investigation into the behaviour of the mayor and councillors at the same meeting.

It seems that the inability of the mayor and the Labour Group to play nicely together is costing Newham taxpayers more and more money.

We also have to wonder whether the decision on paying Fiaz’s legal costs was lawful or ultra vires. If so, the spectre of personal surcharges, unknown since the 1980s, suddenly rears its head again. Five into £100,000 works out at a nice round £20k each.

We suspect that there will be several councillors seeking urgent advice from the lawyers in their party central offices.

And locally, how does a Labour Group (and therefore the council) manage to operate when the members can be silenced if they disagree with the mayor, with the toxic threat of allegations of whatever phobia seems to be in vogue? Heated discussions are the stuff of politics. So is the art of avoiding scrutiny. You sometimes need the former to discover what is behind the latter.

It seems that the Labour Party is content to have an emasculated Labour Group so long as it retains a ‘Labour’ mayor. Even if that mayor has become the subject of ridicule across the London political scene and appears to head an administration that is entirely dysfunctional.

We understand that locally, Labour councillors are not all as content as the party apparatchiks. The political humiliation of the mayor’s antics comes on top of her disastrous management of the council’s finances and the collapse in standards. Quite what they can do remains to be seen. 

But not everyone is upset. We understand that certain lawyers are grateful to Newham tax-payers for their Christmas bonuses.

The public joint statement:

“The Directly Elected Executive Mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz OBE issued a claim in the East London Employment Tribunal alleging race and sex discrimination against Newham Council, arising from the treatment by some councillors, at a meeting in 2022. 

Newham Council denied the claims and the case was listed for two separate hearings in June and December 2025. 

The parties agreed to engage in alternative dispute resolution which included ACAS, in order to try to find an agreed way forward. The Mayor and the Council can both confirm that a settlement has been achieved and the claim against the council has been withdrawn by the Claimant and will be dismissed by the Tribunal in the usual way. 

The terms of settlement were made without admission of liability and to enable the parties to move forward and focus on delivering the essential services needed by the residents, businesses and service users of the borough. 

The Council has acknowledged that the Standards Advisory Committee could have dealt with things differently, and has unreservedly apologised to the Mayor for the distress that she experienced. 

The Council confirms that as part of the overall settlement it made a capped contribution of £30,000 + VAT to the legal costs incurred by the Mayor. 

As with all litigation settled in this way the detailed discussions and terms of settlement will remain confidential.”