Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

My daughter is trying to inveigle a lift to her friend's house in Primrose Hill. I avoid giving my children lifts the vast majority of the time. Firstly - I use public transport much of the time and want them to do same. Secondly - I have very little time. Thirdly - don't think it's good for them to be molly-coddled!

However, as luck would have it, I was going to speak as part of a panel to Camden Liberal Democrats at a supper / Question Time sort of fundraiser. And sod's law - it was about two minutes from where she was going - so she won! On route we saw gangs of little witches, wizards and warlocks - it was so cute. Little covens of kids knocking on doors with a grown up figure lurking not far away overseeing their trick or treating. I quite like Halloween - but still won't watch a horror film on my own!

The other panel members were Sarah Teather MP (she of Brent East by-election victory), Baroness Sally Hamwee (London Assembly and House of Lords frontbencher), Lord Tim Garden (our expert on Iraq, the military and on every TV program on the subject) and myself.

It was a lively old night with lots of questions - pretty challenging ones at that. Iraq figured very largely over the evening and with the impending American presidential election - no surprise. Of course, after Tim Garden speaks so informatively, knowledgeably and well on those key issues. It's not an easy act to follow, but we did our best.

Asked what the panel felt would be the most significant factor in the forthcoming General Election, my answer was trust. Whatever the policies, I think the fundamental problem for Labour is that no one trusts them any more.

The bloke sitting on my left at the Camden supper put his hand up to speak and made the same point about loss of trust because Tim Garden had expressed the view that trust wouldn't be the key issue - it would be policies. This chap, Alexis, then stated that he had left the Labour party for that very reason and had only joined the LibDems one week earlier. I rest my case!

The panel was asked in two words to state their bets on the result of the American elections and the date of the General. Earlier in the year, it looked to me like Bush might go. But now I go for Bush and May!

Labels: iraq

Hotfoot over to a hall in Wembley for the rally at the end of the London Region Liberal Democrat Conference.

Wembley is not easy to access at the moment with the closure of all of its stations during the construction work for the new stadium. I gave up and took my car - only to find that although easy to get to - I might never leave as there were notices of road closures all over the place for the Diwali procession.

Anyway, the rally was titled: 'London's Winning Women' – with myself, Dee Doocey (our new GLA member), Baroness Sally Hamwee from the London Assembly and Sarah Ludford MEP.

I talked about Bob Geldof's recent pronouncements about how much he enjoyed coming home to his partner doing something very feminine in the kitchen - presumably to do with food or curtains. I can't cook and have bare windows - maybe that's why I'm divorced.

Now Bob's recent comments about a women's place being in the kitchen are usually the sort of thing that makes me want to throw up. However - if you really think about it, what Sir Bob is really, really saying is - women make the world a better place (wherever they are). I couldn't agree more.

Many of the problems I see are because the people taking decisions at the highest levels in both politics and business are still generally men - which goes a long way to explaining why the world is the way it is. But before I launch into full scale debate mode - suffice to say - we rallied our supporters and fully expect to get at least five women elected in London to Parliament when Blair calls the election. And despite the flurry of speculation in the papers that it might be February - I still think May is the safer bet.

Labels: sarah ludford

I go to the Grosvenor House Hotel to attend the British Construction Industry Awards as the guest of one of the sponsors - Anthony Oliver - the Editor of New Civil Engineer.

These dos (and this was about 1500 people) are almost all men. One brave one actually asked me out - didn't know whether to be horrified or flattered. Usually they are too scared of me.

Anyway - John Humphreys was the compare for the awards and Charlie Faulkner the guest speaker. They were both brilliantly funny and a lesson in after dinner speaking.

A piece of road won the main prize. Whilst Anthony tried to explain to me that it was about teamwork and construction criteria, my aesthetic taste would have gone for something more tangibly elegant (such as last year’s winner, the Tate Modern).

However, it was a very successful occasion for the industry and for New Civil Engineer.

Meeting of the full Metropolitan Police Authority at which Sir Ian Blair is anointed and announced as the next Met Commissioner. No surprise there. He's been trailed for at least 4 years as the heir apparent to Sir John Stevens (who is standing down). I wish him well.

Other business covered the funding of step change / safer neighbourhoods scheme, which involves putting lots more police on the ground in local communities. Everyone wants it rolled out across London but will the money be found for it? It’s looking unlikely that it will be fully funded in the Government’s announcements next week.

Then back to the GLA where our office Liaison Manager tells me that the Mayor's press office have been moaning to him that I am too negative about the Mayor. Honestly Ken - I do think you are able to defend yourself perfectly adequately without sending someone to wheedle on your behalf.

I think Ken has done some brilliant things - but since becoming a Labour Mayor the
dynamic at London Government has fundamentally changed. Ken is now definitely a Mayor for Labour and not for a Greater London.

Labels: ian blair

Today, I publish a 'dossier' of the Mayor's missed targets.

The Mayor and Transport for London are set to miss six out of thirteen key transport targets set by Government according to the Transport for London Business Plan.

By 2010 a range of targets will be missed, including:

- Reducing congestion in London - it is set to increase by 8% from 2000 levels by 2010
-Cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% and CO2 emissions by 20% from 1990 levels to help Britain comply with the Kyoto Protocol
- Meeting National Air Quality strategy objectives for reducing the amounts of Nitrous Dioxide and Particulate Matter 10 in London's air

For all Ken's talk on reducing congestion, improving air quality and being a champion of the environment - he sure has failed to deliver.

Reducing congestion was Ken's flagship policy and yet the figures reveal that despite the huge success of the Central London Congestion Charge, the Mayor has not begun to even touch on congestion in other parts of London.

Nearly all the money has gone to supporting public transport to get people in and out of the centre so the Congestion Charge would work.

Well hurrah! It does - but there is virtually no improvement in public transport in outer London so people still - four years later - have no choice but to use their cars. And to add insult to injury - the five year business plan the Mayor is announcing today still says absolutely sweet FA on improving orbital public transport.

Later, off to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a Black History month reception. My goodness! You wouldn't believe this building. Most of us wouldn't know it existed as it is in a private-ish road next to Downing Street.

As you go across courtyards into the Locarno Rooms - the overwhelming decoration and opulence of an era long gone are so in your face. Not my taste however, and jolly difficult to walk in high heels on mosaic tiles.

That having been said, it was a great juxtaposition to have a steel band playing in this bastion of British tradition. Speeches by Trevor Phillips and Mike O’Brian - followed by networking. Met a really interesting woman from South London who works with 18-25 year old black youngsters to train them as youth workers. She had taken seven of them to a black township in Soweto. She was saying how extraordinary it was to have to explain to black youngsters from London what apartheid actually was. Fantastic mission and eye opener. Very impressed with her and invited her to come to City Hall to talk further.

Labels: tfl, trevor phillips

Second meeting of Archway Road Residents' Association. This meeting was exceptionally well attended - by politicians! One MP, two London Assembly members and a local councillor. The main discussion was about the Highgate Tube fence. There was a desire to see if there was room for any accommodation between the two polarised positions: the highest fence possible (from people living behind the Archway Road) or only a wire fence (from those living opposite the fence on the Archway Road).

My colleague Cllr Bob Hare will sound out the opposing views in the area over the next two weeks to see if there is a willingness to compromise around a reduced height fence with chicken wire on the higher part to retain the view. If there is - we will hold a public meeting to explore this further and see what we can do to make it happen.

Labels: bob hare

Meeting on the site of the proposed Highgate Depot for Tubelines - one of the two private consortia now responsible for our Tube’s infrastructure.

They want to build a large control centre which (when it goes live in about six years time) will deliver real improvements to the Northern Line. God knows it needs it. As a twice a day Northern Line user - the delays are endless. This control centre will – when up and running - not only deliver more trains per hour - but also a much faster journey time. Hurrah!

However, the control centre is to be built at the back of Lanchester Road and quite visible from Highgate Wood. So – there are many concerns raised by residents and local groups about the visual and conservation aspects. Hence the meeting.

No planning permission is actually needed but Tubelines said they were keen to engage with residents. They’ve put out leaflets and are holding a public meeting on 4th November.

The main issues of concern raised by residents were about the position of the proposed building in relation to houses, the windows in the side, vehicle movements in and out of the site on the access road, the height of the building and location of rooms within the building, planting to screen the building and security. The concerns of the conservation groups were planting, wildlife and the impact on views from the woods.

Tubelines were very accommodating in terms of answering and trying to resolve all the above - even to the extent of considering my suggestion that they excavate and thereby drop the overall height of the building. No promises - but a clear willingness to mitigate as much as possible all of the residents concerns.

Hopefully at the meeting, this will continue to be the case - and both Tubelines and local residents will feel that they have an agreed accommodation to meet both sides' needs.

I had a meeting with David Warwick (Chief Executive, Haringey Council) about White Hart Lane Recreation Ground. Raised my concerns. He agreed to get the head of planning to follow up with further details about the case.

Later, I had the first meeting of a new sub-committee that I am chairing at the London Assembly. It is to monitor the implementation of the recommendations from the investigation into the police’s use of stop and search Scrutiny which the MPA (including myself) carried out earlier this year.

Labels: mpa

Mayor's Question Time at City Hall. Our main thrust today is by my colleague Dee Doocey about a big planning application in Stratford.

Mayor Livingstone is forever attacking councils who do not ensure that 50% of housing in new developments is social housing. Yet on this project … he’s accepted plans which only have 30%. A case of one rule for him, one rule for others …? He says we need to be flexible and understand where developers are coming from. Wonder if he’ll grant the same understanding to councils in future?

My own little merriment for the day is to ask him if the cat got his tongue over the huge profits made by Tubelines and Metronet in their first year (over £90million) and the bonus paid to Terry Morgan (Chief Executive of Tubelines), even though the company failed to meet 27 out of its 39 targets.

Thus far the Mayor had remained unusually silent on the matter. Historically (even hysterically) Ken is not usually silent about fat cats and obscene profits. Tempted by my question - good old Ken reappeared and he took great pleasure in letting out his spleen regarding the privatisation of the tube. I knew it was in there!

Labels: ken livingstone

Meeting in the morning with Michael Cordwell James at White Hart Lane Recreation Ground. Michael started and is leading a campaign to save this little patch of open space from the grasp of Sir Thomas Moore School.

Thomas Moore School which has a playground (enclosed) beyond which is Pond Park, also known as White Hart Lane Recreation Grounds. This open space is used by the local community (and the school sometimes). Now Thomas Moore school has applied to annex half of the space to create their own facility - an all-weather pitch.

Now, more resources for schools (especially playing fields!) are normally good news. But this plan would deprive other people in the area of access to much of the space. Not so good news. Does the school really have to expand in this way?

In particular, a few minutes walk away is the New River Sports Centre and also White Hart Lane school (which both already have all weather pitches).

It would be the obvious move to enhance and improve New River so that both schools and the community could benfit from a state of the art sports facility - and keeping their green space open to all.

I part and decide I need to see the Chief Exec of Haringey Council on this one.

Also, a little flurry of emails from miffed local Tories - miffed at my description of their local chair as 'some bloke'.

Apart from not actually knowing that the guy who stood up was the chair of the local Tories (recognise the name, but not the face) - the reason I used the term 'some bloke' was because that is what the guy who stood up was purporting to be at first. He did not say who he was. It was only when a member of the audience asked him after his long tirade to say who he was, that he declared his true colours (blue) and stated that he was the chair of the local Conservatives.

Sarah Kennedy (wife of Charles) came over to have a look at City Hall, have lunch with me and catch up on things. We knew each other when Charles was just a glint in her eye. As the news of her pregnancy had just been announced - there was much to talk about and not much of it about politics! She is just such an excellent partner for him - with a good sense of balance between her own life and support for his. He is one lucky man.

After lunch, went to the TUC in Great Russell Street for a meeting of the Commission for Racial Equality London Board (of which I am a member). The first hour is in the hall to hear a speech by its chair, Trevor Phillips first as part of Black History month.

It was quite an interesting speech. It’s probably the first time I have heard someone delivering a speech to union members quoting Shakespeare! The content was interesting and thoughtful and appeared to be well received.

There was a reception after, but I went on upstairs to the actual meeting of the CRE London Board. One of the key issues on the agenda was how to deal with the rise of the far right - exemplified by the election of a BNP councillor in Barking and Dagenham.

Labels: trevor phillips

Off to Wood Vale tennis club to look at the court for which the club wishes to apply for flood lighting. It is very remote from the houses and as the club has written to all the likely affected residents and received only one and a half objections - I should think it will be OK. But don't know and will consult planning department for their view. They did originally send someone, but he seems to have looked at the wrong court – i.e. the ones near houses as opposed to the single one furthest away.

Rush round leaflet deliveries to our deliverers in middle of lightning and thunderstorm. Have a stinking cold and matters not helped by opening car door and said leaflets falling out into major mud puddle. Elections - don't you love 'em?

Committee Chairs meeting at the GLA. This is the first of this term of office and is an opportunity for the chairs of the various Assembly committees to meet to discuss budget items for scrutiny work and other matters. There is pretty consensual agreement that money spent on occasional consultants, polling on issues as they affect Londoners, London-wide expert seminars etc is money generally well spent, Actually, the Assembly spends a very small amount on anything. However, if you look at the Mayor's expenditure…!

I raise the issue of a looming constitutional crisis if the Parking Enforcement investigation falls as a consequence of pressure from the boroughs. I believe we will be able to come to agreement at the meeting later this afternoon - but want to raise the issue in the generic rather than the specific. ie If the boroughs don't like what the Assembly is doing and effectively veto it thus making the scrutiny work untenable - what is the legal position and more importantly, what is the constitutional position. I leave that hanging in the air as we all rush off for Assembly Plenary Session.

This session of the London Assembly is on the Olympics. Seb Coe is the star turn - but we get a message just before commencement that his father has been taken ill and he cannot therefore attend. We plough on with the Mayor and reps from the Olympic Bid committee. No news really. We all support the bid. The Tories then undermine their support by being over negative about the bid. Not the most scintillating of sessions.

Informal meeting of the Transport Committee to look at the first draft of our response to the consultation on the West London tram. My mission here is to try and get the five political parties to agree that this response should reflect the evidence we received rather than be just an opportunity for us all to restate our party positions on the tram. A consensual report raising the concerns we genuinely have will be far more useful and effective than a political rant. We can all do that in our separate party responses to the consultation.

Anyway - so far so good. The draft is well written - and when chapter 5 is concluded (at this point unwritten and about traffic displacement) we will meet again to see if we have enough common ground for a unified response. Otherwise it will have to be the majority think x and the minority think y - which is OK - but I think loses its punch.

High noon at the London Assembly. The three political party leaders (or their reps) came with officers to meet myself, and the Labour and Tory transport leads from the Transport Committee to see if there was a way forward on the parking scrutiny - with ALG/borough cooperation.

The main issues seemed to be that the ALG (the Association of London Government) felt that the Assembly should not examine areas where the boroughs had been democratically elected to operate in an area. Whilst I understand the sensitivities, the remit of the London Assembly is to raise issues of importance to Londoners as well as scrutinise the Mayor and TfL. This scrutiny had passed through all the appropriate and public stages to reach this stage and had been unanimously approved. And parking is unquestioningly of importance as an issue for London.

The second area where they were unhappy was because of remarks I had made in the media which to them seemed to indicate I might have made up my mind in advance of the scrutiny. All I can say about that is that the boroughs didn't like the bits about my suggesting if they didn't want to comply with the scrutiny they may have something to hide - but as I pointed out - equally, motorists who thought they had a hard deal might interpret the fact that I am on record as saying I support restriction, penalty and fine as biased against them. Both are wrong.

I believe I assuaged their concerns and both my Labour and Tory colleagues backed me up as being a fair and scrupulous chair.

We then moved onto business - and we were quite happy with the ALG's suggestions for amended terms of reference. All parties will now go back to their groups for agreement and hopefully that will go through the next Transport Committee and finally get the show on the road.

Day ends off with stuffing envelopes for our council by-election in Haringey. The fun never ends...

Labels: olympics

I leave the GLA at about 7pm to rush back to the inaugural meeting of the Archway Road Residents' Association which is being set up tonight.

A good thing to come out of the controversies over the Highgate Tube station fence is that residents and businesses have decided to form a local group to ensure they have a voice on similar matters in future.

Their three main campaigns are to be on the fence, the local CPZ and hanging baskets on the Archway Road. It was a good meeting and I am sure it will make a difference in their representation in future over matters of local import.

Labels: controlled parking zones

Breakfast meeting at a Crouch End resident's house to discuss the TUC building. The community, the LibDems and even the Exec Member for Education on the Council are all campaigning for the TUC building to be bought by Haringey Council as a site for a new school. Crouch End is desperately short of places and we have been calling for a new school in the area for quite a few years.

The fear is though that the TUC - despite its supposed left-wing position and social conscience - will just want to make oodles of money from the site and sell it to a residential developer rather than for the common good of the community in the form of a new school.

Haringey Council as the planning authority would have to grant it permission to sell to such a developer by changing the covenant which currently prohibits it. At first sight you would think, phew it's protected - but in reality Haringey can only refuse to do so 'within reason'. So it's really no protection at all.

I have gone to meet some of the key campaigners to see where I can add some value or do anything more to help. Apart from continuing to campaign and finding information - the only other avenue is to try and embarrass the TUC into doing the right thing rather than trying to cash in. I will write to them this week to remind them of their social duty…

Lots of familiar faces as I walk into Lauderdale House at the bottom of Highgate Village and in Waterlow Park. I am there to address the North London branch of the University of the Third Age on “Transport Challenges in London”. Funny really, as I grew up in Highgate and used to go to the park every Saturday when I was little to feed the squirrels and the ducks. Home beat.

These are the sort of occasions I love - firstly because I love my subject and also I find groups of the not so young often make a fascinating audience. They are interested, intelligent - and have reached a stage in life where more often than not they say exactly what they think.

I enjoyed it. They enjoyed it. It was a really pleasant morning.

In the evening, it was the Muswell Hill Area Assembly. The main item of the day is the bids for how to spend the £50,000 allocated to the Area Assembly to spend on local projects in the current financial year.

Haringey Council has 'given' this amount to each Area Assembly. Although the Muswell Hill Area Assembly covers a larger area than others, it has the same amount of money. Anyway, local residents have sent in suggestions for small projects to be funded.

They were listed and pinned up on the wall with space for people to stick their little green sticker dots - so they can indicate which ones they support the most.

The first thing that happened was some bloke jumping to his feet and saying it was disgusting that Wayne Hoban (the chair of the Assembly and a Lib Dem councillor for Alexandra ward) had put information about the Assembly on a LibDem website. 'This was political and disgraceful' the chap said.

Wayne handled this really well - and explained calmly and rationally that he had put the information out to a wide email base of local people so that lots of people could know that the vote on the bids was taking place and not just the usual suspects who come to area assemblies. And in fact attendance was higher. The full details of the bids were put up on the web so people could see them – if they wished – before the meeting.

Given that people normally complain that there isn’t enough information about what Haringey Council is up to, it was a pretty strange sight to see someone complaining about someone making an effort to distribute more information! But all became clear...

The bloke continued and continued to harangue Wayne when another chap from the audience (who were getting fed up with this interruption to the business of the day) demanded that the bloke making the accusation state who he was. He said his name and that he was chair of the local Conservative Party - at which point the whole audience turned on him.

The meeting then continued with a presentation on a review into the condition of pavements. I have often taken council officers to view pavements that are dangerous that residents have phoned in about but about which no action has been taken - and then it is done within 24 hours.

This is not just because of my nagging (!) but also because pavements which are too uneven can leave the council open to being sued if someone trips and hurts themselves.

The greater problem is that Haringey Council has had no program for replacing ordinary cracked pavements that are not legally dangerous. Now, seemingly, there is a planned program of replacement. I asked what they were going to do about replacing paving stones where they had done a repair in an emergency and whacked down tarmac / asphalt - and left it like that for years. The response was somewhat half-hearted I thought – i.e. yes we will get round to it sometime.

In the break the audience took their green stickers and voted on the bids for projects. The results will be published in due course after the councillors look at all the bids to fund as many as possible of the most popular ones.

Labels: wayne hoban

Bump into my sister and brother-in-law at Haringey Civic Centre where he has come to take British Citizenship. Dan is American and has been here for decades and finally decided to do this. Very significant day.

I am there to meet a member of the Bangladeshi community who wanted to talk to me about a range of issues. Very interesting meeting followed by meeting with a young guy who wants to set up a Welfare to Work program in Tottenham for unemployed, young ethnic minority residents. I wish him well and support the idea. Finding funding will be the issue.

Then off to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) for a meeting of the EODB (Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board). We discuss informally the work program for the next few years. Loads of good ideas around for investigation and keeping the Met to account ranging from policing terrorism to forced marriages.

At end of meeting get to gossip with the members about who will be the next Commissioner. The members who are on the interview panels will not divulge anything to us who weren't. So we adjourn to the pub - where still not a word passes their lips!

Labels: mpa

The Lib Dem GLA group's been approached for some views on environmental issues by an interesting new website/blog. It's from the Enfield and Barnet United Nations Association - mpwatch.blogs.com/21st_century_world

My colleauge Mike Tuffrey's done the answers - you can see them on the blog.

Informal workshop with Transport for London (TfL) looking at traffic modelling in West London to see if you can ram a tram without causing a jam. So far - they can't. One interesting notion came to light. TfL's traffic modelling consultant kept assuring members of the Transport Committee that people made choices that meant once they couldn't use the tram route, they would change the way they drove, where they worked, the mode they travelled, etc, etc.

When I pushed him in saying that if you stick a giant tram down a main road - people actually had no choice but were being thus forced to change their life patterns - he conceded. I wish they could get over some of the pinch points - but I don't see them being able to do it well enough not to ruin their business case for the tram. The business case is shaky anyway and hugely expensive. They ought to take a look at a modern electric trolleybus for one quarter the price. Particularly as the experts said at the formal scrutiny session that the tram would be out of date virtually by the time it was built.

Anyway - it was a really useful meeting and the TfL director of the project is really working hard to try and get this through. In the end, if the Mayor says it goes ahead, it does - regardless of consultation. We'll see. I don't think he will have the money anyway. Ken can faff about for a few years with inquiries and feasibility and on and on. By the time to real funding is needed who knows where we will be…

(To see further details of my view on the tram, have a look at http://www.glalibdems.org.uk/news/178.html).

Labels: tfl

Just a note about the Hornsey Town Hall Advisory Panel meeting on Wednesday 6th October for information.

There was a presentation from a 'developer' - but a developer with a difference. She had a heart and developed in partnership with the community and the needs of that community - whilst still making a living.

This was Sylvie Pierce from a company called Capital Providence. Sylvie told us about her work, specialising in the development of heritage buildings. Shoreditch New Deal for Communities Trust had come to her and asked her to look at buildings in the area. She’d identified a Grade II listed building she felt she could develop well.

The similarity with Hornsey Town Hall was that in order to make the development work, 20% of the site had been allocated for residential development. This provided the funding for making the best of the rest of the site – including both a community space and a restaurant called the Hoxton Apprentice involving Pru Leith (a bit like Jamie Oliver and his training restaurant). The restaurant profit goes to running the whole scheme. She put two super-duper apartments on the top to bring in some loot - and Bob's your uncle.

I know I have truncated the story - but the picture painted was of a different approach to development from the usual approach of developers. It was one where the developer worked with a trust and with brilliant architects. They delivered a great project and produced something which generated the money to pay for the scheme.

Now, there’s been some questions about Haringey Council’s attitude towards the town hall. At the meeting, Judy Bax (the Labour councillor who chairs the advisory group) said Haringey’s position is “no profit, no loss” – they won’t put money into developing the site, but neither are they going to insist on making money out of the site either. Many people have campaigned against any plans to just sell-off the Town Hall, so that was good news to hear.

We then had a look at the proposed planning brief for the site. It was only tabled at the meeting and is quite long and complex relating to Haringey's planning policies etc. It covers what sort of developments on the site would be allowed. It's really just a framework outlining what sort of things can be done on the site.

This will be presented at the next Crouch End / Stroud Green Area Assembly. It is very, very general - and no one should get the idea that this is in any way the detail of what would be on the site.

The formal consultation on the planning brief runs from 16th October until 15th November. It will be exhibited at the library and the town hall and Haringey Council will be writing to residents most affected. The council are still discussing how far and how wide the consultation in terms of individual letters to residents will be.

It will also be more fully presented at the next Advisory Panel. It will be available on the council website and there will be adverts in the press notifying of all of this.

There was then a presentation by one group with a suggested way forward for the period when Haringey Council moves out and before the new development is ready.

In brief, there was a proposal for an interim management committee to move into the site and let what space could be let for commercial rents (offices, rehearsal rooms, meeting rooms etc) and have some artistic enterprises using some of the space so that there was no down time or loss of earnings during the 3-5 years the project might be likely to take.

Everyone thought a swift operation was necessary - but how and who should do this was a matter to be gone into further.

As for long-term arrangements - this was the crux of the matter as far as I could see. The Advisory Panel has to put a report to Haringey Council Executive in the relatively near future. This is the area which will touch on who makes the decisions, how much is developed for community and how much for commercial; whether the council retains control and chooses a developer etc or whether a charitable trust with skilled trustees carries this all forward.

Andrew Travers, who is the Director of Corporate Finance at Haringey, had made it quite clear that the council itself would not support the trust idea.

However, the clear will of earlier meetings had been for a trust and to remove it from the auspices of Haringey Council. Several people said that the trick would be to get the Labour councillors who form the Council Executive (who will make the decision) on board and that they would be scared of a trust because of their experiences with Ally Pally.

They were reminded by a member of the panel that Ally Pally Trustees were actually councillors and it was effectively still run by the council as trustees - and that this was quite different from the bulk of a new trust which would have mostly independent trustees.

This got batted around for a while. I voiced the view that we had to make a clear statement of the vision (which everyone virtually agrees on as an arts/education/community etc space with some commercial parts) and make it very clear that an independent charitable trust is the only way forward. However, there was a need for a changeover period while the long-term development got up and running.

It was also understood that Haringey Council could not simply 'give' a £20million asset directly and without safeguards to a trust - however brilliant that trust might be. By the same token if the trust was to have total control in the end - it too needed to have a transfer program, business plan etc. Additionally, during any transitional phase decisions that would have to be made would have to be joint so that both parties had some controls and safeguards. The third way one could even say!

It did seem that there was some forward movement on this as a way forward to move from council to trust control.

The next meeting is in a few weeks time, so I’ll update you on further progress as it happens.

Labels: tony travers

Interview for London Tonight on the obscene profits made by Tubelines in their first year of running the Northern, Jubilee and Piccadilly lines. To add insult to injury, their Chief Executive, Terry Morgan has received GBP100,000 bonus.

Now the profit was expected. That's the consequence of Labour's tube privatisation scheme, with GBP41million profit taken out of the tube rather than reinvested in the infrastructure.

But in this first year, Tubelines failed to reach 27 of their 39 targets. Of course, the Chief Exec's bonus was for delivering the profits to shareholders rather than delivering an improved service to London's poor tube users.

Strangely enough, Mayor Livingstone - erstwhile opponent of the PPP - made no comment. Well - now he's a Labour Mayor…!

Labels: ken livingstone

Off to Sidcup in Kent for a briefing from the Senior Met Detective in charge of Operation Minstead. In short, this is a police operation to catch a serial rapist of elderly women in South London. The crimes have been committed over the last 12 years and the police have the criminal's DNA but have not been able to catch him.

My involvement in this case is to do with the so-called ‘voluntary’ collection of DNA to try to catch him. There is a cutting edge technique being used to genetically identify from DNA the genealogical origins of an individual.

In Minstead's case this is a man between 25 and 40, black and from a particular area / island in the Caribbean. Using this information, the police narrowed down their ‘persons of interest’ from an original 20,000+ to 917 men. The police want to test all their DNA so they can eliminate them from their investigations. Now, not everyone was happy to be tested. If they refused they got a letter from the Met saying that a senior officer would look into the reasons for their refusal and let them know of their decision. If they still refused and there were enough grounds to arrest the refuseniks - they did. This resulted in five arrests - although two men changed their mind at the last moment.

I have a number of concerns around all of these issues. One is the change in legislation which allows the police to keep on record DNA from persons who are taken to a police station even if not arrested or anything. I am also concerned that the word 'voluntary' is meaningless as it is clear that what is actually happening - albeit carefully - is mandatory testing. If we’re going to have mandatory testing, there should be a proper debate – and a change in the law and rules – rather than it happening by the backdoor.

In fact a very, very senior Met Officer was talking to me about Minstead at a meeting and, when I voiced my concern over the grey area around what was 'voluntary', he said - "Oh voluntary is voluntary - until they say no." No doubt he would say he was joking. Poor judgement I say.

Another key issue raised is the actual science of genetic identification in this way. It seems to me, following my time looking in detail at the use of stop and search by the police, that any of the mechanisms in the police force that are discretionary - like stop and search - can fall prey to discrimination.

This new science cannot be applied as yet to the white European population. The group is too big and the individual components are as yet unidentifiable. Thus this new forensic 'miracle' may have built-in discrimination. To be pursued.

Labels: crime, dna

It's Full Council meeting in Haringey. The main thing of note for me was a sycophantic question from a Labour councillor to the (Labour) Executive Member for Social Services asking her to congratulate herself on an 'event' for listening to older residents and what they want at the Ally Pally.

Sick making really - as this was the night before Labour would officially take the decision to close two of the last remaining residential care homes for the elderly that serve Haringey borough. They had tried to close them around four years ago and the campaign with relatives and residents had seen them off.

Haringey had promised then to use the money from the sale of another elderly home to fund the improvements that would be necessary to bring the two homes under threat up to new required standards.

Seemingly, Haringey couldn't remember their promises. But we all did. The relatives of residents of the home were broken hearted and trying so hard to save them. Tomorrow night the curtain will fall. Even though there are deputations from relatives - I know Labour in Haringey. Whatever they may say about 'choice' in old age, they’ve already made the decision. Of course people want to remain independent as long as possible - but there does come a time for some when they need more care than can be given in their own homes.

Sadly, Cllr Barbara Fabian, one of our LibDem councillors from Fortis Green ward (Haringey Council) has just resigned due to ill health. She has had a real struggle with her health for some time and I am so sorry to see her go. She brought such experience and wisdom in her field of children and education and psychology. Whenever she spoke in council it was with substance. I am really sorry that she has had such difficulties.

So - off I go to deliver leaflets. The plus of a by-election (apart from hopefully winning) is losing half a stone in weigh and toning muscles. There is always a silver lining.