More Questions than Answers? Has the Mayor broken the Law? Has the Time Come for Comrade Asser to Take over the Reins of Power?
In an earlier article, we raised some questions about the Mayor’s declarations. The Mayor has since updated her entry on the Register of Interests, some 11 weeks after the election.
We see that she currently has NO interests in land within the boundaries of the borough and that her domicile remains so sensitive in nature that it is not disclosed to the public.
This reflects the earlier entry, which says exactly the same thing.
That leaves us with an abiding concern. If we are correct in believing that Mayor Fiaz is married (or in a permanent relationship with Asjad Nazir), then why do his interests in land not occur on the register? If the information we have is correct, he is the owner of a property in the E15 area.
As such, we would expect an adult woman to be living with her partner, rather than at the home of her parents and this is what the information provided to us suggests. It is not what the published council documents suggest.
This is what the government website says regarding the Register.
“Councils should adopt a Code of Conduct that reflects the Nolan principles on conduct in public life, with councillors declaring any private interest that relate to their public duties, and councillors must take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
“In addition, it is now a criminal offence to fail to declare or register disclosable pecuniary interests - which includes any employment or trade carried out for profit or gain. The register of councillors’ interests must be published online by the council.”
Councillors regularly and properly include the interests of their partners/spouses on their declarations, (as shown in the previous article-Representation of the People). Not so, it seems, Mayor Fiaz. The pecuniary interests of a partner which are wholly separate from the elected member DO NOT have to be registered. However, where there is a beneficial interest to the elected member, the situation is different.
This is what the government’s guidance for councillors states:
Or, as it states in the Localism Act 2011,
The government’s guidance to councillors, states that the following should be registered.
And though this was written specifically with regard to conflicts of interest in planning, the general statement of responsibility is crystal clear. IT IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO FAIL TO DECLARE A DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST.
If Ms Fiaz is married, it would appear that she has a beneficial interest, (and possibly a legal interest) in a property in the E15 area, owned by her husband. As such, whilst the interests of spouses are not strictly required to be registered, if she acquires an interest by virtue of her marriage, our reading is that the property should be declared and registered on the council’s register.
And just what are pecuniary interests? Again, the guidance to councillors is helpful.
If she is not married, (or is no longer in that relationship), and indeed she is living at the home of her parents in Forest Gate, then none of this applies.
However, if she is still in the relationship we are bound to ask:
Why does her husband/partner’s interests in land not appear on the register?
Why has she not declared the correct domicile?
Are the nominations for Councillors Vaughan and Sarley Pontin valid? Remember, R Fiaz was one of the nominees for the two candidates. If a nominator was ineligible, it would suggest that the nomination was not valid. Therefore, we ask, is the election of Vaughan and Sarley Pontin void? Should Emma Sorrell and Gareth Jones be sitting in the council chamber for the Greens instead?
Has Ms Fiaz committed a criminal offence of misrepresentation under the 1983 Act?
If Ms Fiaz would like to contact us with an explanation or denial, we commit to publishing her response without edit. Until then, we would like to know the truth. And so, we suspect, do Emma Sorrell and Gareth Jones.