Agenda item

The Mayor invited the Monitoring Officer to read out the first motion on behalf of the Administration.

“This Council expressed alarm at the rise of Islamophobia in recent years across the UK, and around the world. In Croydon we have seen an increase in reports of hate crime, including Islamophobic hate crime incidents, of 35% between 2017-2020. (Croydon Community Safety Strategy 2022-24).

This Council is committed to fighting Islamophobia in all its forms. We welcome the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia, which has been backed by hundreds of organisations and institutions.

The APPG on British Muslims working definition of Islamophobia reads as follows and includes the subsequent contemporary examples of Islamophobia:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

·         Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.

·         Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.

·         Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.

·         Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.

·         Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

·         Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.

·         Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g. loyalty tests.

·         Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammad being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.

·         Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.

This Council supports the Executive’s intention to adopt the above definition of Islamophobia as set out by the APPG on British Muslims and will continue to engage with local Muslim community groups and organisations to combat this hatred. This Council calls on the government to follow suit and adopt the APPG definition, sending a clear message that any and all forms of Islamophobia will not be tolerated in our communities.”

The Mayor invited Councillor Ben-Hassel to propose the motion.

Councillor Ben-Hassel stated that research had shown that 35% of Britons think that Islam was a general threat to the British way of life. However, it should be noted that Muslims were also subject to terrorist attacks particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Councillor Ben-Hassel continued by recounting her experience of growing up in a multi faith family and that these faiths shared a lot in common around tolerance, supporting the most vulnerable and social justice. In addition, the local Muslim community in her own ward had been supplying hot food to the rest of the community during Covid.

In concluding, Councillor Ben-Hassel stated that the existing anti-racism measures in law were not equipped to deal with Islamophobia and that defining Islamophobia was a first step towards addressing it. The APPG on British Muslim definition had been backed by hundreds of organisations including the Muslim Council of Britain, yet there were still no changes in law.

Councillor FitzPatrick seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Quadir also spoke of his personal experience and that of the Muslim community in highlighting the fear that was experienced in just going about in the community. There was also a feeling amongst younger member of the Muslim community that there would never be acceptance of them in wider society. He continued by stating that he was proud that the borough had tabled this motion and supported it.

Councillor Stranack stated how proud he was to be standing with Councillor Quadir in next May’s elections and how the Abrahamic faiths had much in common. He continued by stating that it was necessary to be careful when designing legislation and highlighted instances where legislation had led to unintended consequences.

Councillor Stranack supported the motion.

Councillor Fitzpatrick started speaking by stating that he was proud to be joining the debate as a member of the Jewish community and was happy to speak in solidarity with the Muslim community. In particular, Councillor Fitzpatrick highlighted the online Islamophobia abuse with a huge number of people using fake identities and the widespread availability of white supremacist culture and the spread of fake news accusing the Muslim community of spreading Covid.

Councillor Fitzpatrick continued by stating that these people were fascists seeking to exploit ignorance and prejudice with the aim of taking society back to a barbaric age. He additionally hoped that the Online Security Bill would be strong and allow people to carry on their lives with freedom from hate.

Councillor Fitzpatrick supported the motion.

Before the vote was taken the Mayor reminded the public that only those Members who were present in the Council Chamber could vote. This was due to the legislation at the time specifying that only those present in the room were able to vote.

The motion was put to the vote and was unanimously carried.

The Mayor invited the Monitoring Officer to read out the second motion on behalf of the Opposition.

“This Council regrets that the political choices and budgetary proposals of the current Administration are directly causing pain and anguish to the most vulnerable within our borough. 

These choices include: buying a worthless hotel and selling it at a multi-million pound loss; creating a failing developer that went bust; closing popular local facilities ignoring the clear wishes of local people; cutting Council Tax benefits which increase the cost of living for those on the lowest incomes; using LTNs and other schemes not to help communities but to generate revenue to bail out the Administration’s financial black hole; failing to invest enough in repairing Council-owned properties, resulting in residents living in squalid conditions; and cutting care packages for those desperately in need of support – to name a few.

This Council acknowledges these errors and apologises to every resident affected.”

The Mayor invited Councillor Perry to propose the motion.

Councillor Perry stated that it was the choices made by the Labour Administration that brought the borough to bankruptcy. The Report in the Public Interest had made it abundantly clear that the problems occurred before Covid and that Covid had been the final straw. Where other local authorities had been able rely on reserves to see them through Croydon had none.

Councillor Perry continued by stating that as time had gone by the Administration had repeatedly blamed the Government or Co vid for the problems. Whilst there had been a change for leadership the problem had continued and those now in charge already sat at the table and had been part of the decision making process that borough the borough to its knees. In addition the current leadership had allowed the culture of bullying to continue as shown by local Labour members setting up petitions to attempt to rescind the deselection of Councillor Pelling.

In concluding Councillor Perry talked about the poor financial decisions that the Labour Administration had made such as the purchase of a hotel for £30 million, the purchase of a shopping centre for £50 million, the setting up of a development company and the use of an unproven developer to refurbish Fairfield Halls. Yet again it was the most vulnerable who were paying for these poor decisions through, for example, the cuts to support for young and old and cuts to voluntary sector grants. The Administration had failed the borough and its residents.

Councillor Hale seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.

The Leader, Councillor Hamida Ali stated that this motion was the same story from the Tory Opposition but that for the 7^th month in a row the Administration had been able to show that it was on track for a broadly balanced budget. The follow up report from the Government’s Independent Non-Statutory Rapid Review spoke of good progress and signs of greater budgetary control. The Improvement and Assurance Panel’s3rd Report also stated that significant improvement around financial management.

In continuing, Councillor Ali stated that although the Opposition regretted the changes made by the Administration but the Administration was rightly proud of its values and delivering change in the borough such as the Legacy Youth Service, paying the London Living Wage, investing in and protecting the cultural industries, investing in the voluntary sector and domestic violence service and responding to the climate emergency. The budget for next year represented a £300 million investment in the community.

In concluding, Councillor Ali reminded Members that since 2010 there had been an 81% cut in the Revenue Support Grant and that chronic underfunding since had led to this situation and that the Opposition had failed to state how they proposed to fund services. This had led to a lack of transparency and it was time that the Opposition were honest with the people of Croydon.

Councillor King quoted from the Independent Report from Chris Wood which stated that the” Council’s Administration had demonstrated its preparedness to take difficult  decisions, with some notable high profile issues determined.”  Councillor King continued by stating that report could not state “the Council” as the opposition had voted or spoken against every proposal made. Another independent voice from outside the council, the Government’s Independent Panel had also stated that difficult decisions were required.

Councillor King continued by stating that the motion did not face up to the difficult decisions required and that the Conservative Mayoral candidate himself was incapable of facing up to those difficult decisions and had no plan or idea of how to balance the Council’s budget. This was in contrast to the Administration who had made those tough decisions by committing to make the council more efficient but protecting frontline services at the same time. A large proportion of the proposed budget savings will come from making services more efficient, reducing back office costs and seeking new external funding and income.

In conclusion, Councillor King stated that the Opposition motion was not a substitute for a plan and should be rejected.

Councillor Hale stated that 2021 had been another terrible year for the residents of Croydon as the Labour Administration tried to distance themselves from the terrible financial situation which they had created. The people of Croydon had not forgotten the disgrace some Labour councillors had brought to the town with the largest ever Government bailout when Croydon was once again shown on TV screens with pictures of squalid, mouldy, fungal infested sopping wet homes in Regina Road.

Councillor Hale continued by stating that the Labour Administration had failed to learn and had continued to ignore residents, failed to get a proper grip on the budget, leaving callers on the phone for hours to speak to the Council Tax Team who do not pick up the phone, allowing developers to get away with planning breaches and relying on car drivers to incurring sufficient penalties to balance the books. Councillor Hale asked why multi-million pound contracts had been extended despite failing to deliver the services residents had paid for. Also why with so much development funding coming why was there no money available for Purley Pool.

In conclusion Councillor Hale stated that the residents deserved so much more than this and therefore supported the motion.

The motion was put to the vote and defeated.