The issues behind the Green Party's Richmond Park furore as Green Left calls for transparency

Green Left*, the eco-socialist group with the Green Party, has issued the following statement over the controversy over the Richmond Park by-election, which includes allegations over undue pressure on local members to stand aside for the Liberal Democrat candidate in order to defeat Zac Goldsmith and a donation to party funds (eventually refused) to encourage them to do so. LINK

Green Left  welcomes the Green Party Executive's and Green Party  Regional Council’s decisions to consider the serious  issues raised in the so-called ‘Richmond Report’. Transparency and accountability are essential in this process.  We look forward to the Green Party 2017 Conference democratically arriving at a clear policy on the ‘Progressive Alliance’. furore

The 'Progressive Alliance' put forward by Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley in their co-leadership campaign is itself controversial within the party, putting aside the specific issues around the Richmond Report.

I have recently summed up the various positions thus:

Following some of the discussion, mainly on FB, it seems that there are several positions from Green Party members on recent moves on the 'Progressive Alliance' (PA) (a Venn diagram may be useful!)

1. Those who are for a PA & think that the Lucas-Bartley overwhelming leadership mandate and the fact that a PA was their main platform justifies their current position
2. Those who are against a PA BUT think that -ditto-
3. Those who are for PA but think that Lucas - Bartley have usurped the constitutional role of the membership in making policy
4. Those who are against PA AND think that -ditto-
5. Those who think that a PA is necessary to get rid of the Tories perhaps even in this parliament
6. Those who think that a PA is the only way to get PR in 2020 and thus have more Green MPs in 2025 (little mention how many more Ukip or other far right MPs there may be)
7. Those who think that Lib Dems are progressive on social issues, climate change but right-wing on the economy
8. Those who think think that the Lib Dems are beyond the pale because of their previous record in Coalition
9. Those who are for us holding our noses and reaching a deal with ANY party that will support bringing in PR during the 2020-25 parliament.
10. Those who want to add other redlines to any deal with other parties including austerity, climate change

I think ten is enough for now, although there is also the issue of political campaigning with other parties and organisations on common issues outside of any electoral deal.

In the Richmond case the argument about progressing the campaign for the introduction of proportional representation through deals with other parties (though Labour isn't playing ball) was supplemented by the argument that getting the Tories out should be the primary aim and that would be furthered by reducing the narrow Tory majority in Parliament.

That view was countered by the one that suggested the by-election was an ideal opportunity to show-case the Green Party's policy on opposing ALL airport expansions as essential in reducing emissions to help deal with global warming and climate change.

* I am chair of Green Left

Avoiding stereotypes about Romanians living in Brent

I made representations to Brent's Equalities Committee last night about a report on the borough's Eastern European Community. LINK Although the report's recommendations are mainly non-controversial I argued that statements in the report were likely to reinforce stereotypes about the Romanian community. They focused on single men despite the fact that there are many Romanian families settled in the borough and contributing to the community. Reminding the Committee of the Counci's policy on hate crime I warned that in the present climate the report could reinforce prejudice and as it was in the public domain potentially damaging to the council.

The report's opening paragraph states:
 

This cross-Council group has been established to look at the socio-economic barriers and challenges experienced by the Eastern European communities living in Brent and make recommendations to address these. The scope of the group does not cover rough sleepers, overcrowding and anti-social behaviour because these themes are either within the scope of other forums or will be considered as separate work streams. 


But then goes on to give 'anecdotal  evidence':
 

The two largest Eastern European groups in Brent are Polish and Romanian. The Polish community is on the whole quite well settled and has an established support network in Brent. Unlike the Polish community, the Romanian community does not have access to an established support network. The majority of the Romanians in Brent are single men and/or economic migrants who are financially supporting their families back in Romania. Some of them are coming to Brent to do seasonal casual work, they are not interested in 
interacting with Council’s and NHS services and often do not have National Insurance numbers. They often sleep rough and/or in overcrowded conditions, their health needs are often unmet. There has also been an increase in female sex workers from Eastern Europe who are often subject to abuse and violence and who also experience health inequalities

The focus on single men ignores the fact that later there is data from nurseries and schools that indicate significant number of Romanian children in Brent schools. 500 children (3%) speak Romanian as a first language and 384 (2%) Polish. In primary schools 1,164 (4%) of children speak Romanian as first language and 1,000 (4%) Polish.

In comparison there were 24 rough sleepers in Brent on 25th November 2016 (compared with 64 last year) and 'Romanian and Polish are the two largest groups of rough sleepers in Brent'.

The focus on barriers perhaps inevitably means a concentration on the negatives so in my presentation I wanted to focus on the positive side for balance.

I spoke about my experience as a governor at a school where 12.5% of the children speak Romanian (compared with 4.5% Polish) where the Romanian children are very much part of the school community with some sitting on the Pupil School Council and involved in the many extra-curricular activities, including music and choir.  They are proud of their country of origin but see themselves as now part of the UK.  Many have been at the school for 5 or 6 years although their sense of security was shaken by the EU Referendum result.

There are no issues regarding attendance etc and a Romanian parent (a teacher at another school) is standing in the current Parent Governor election.

In the local community longer-term settlement is also indicated by the number of Romanian shops opening up in Wembley, Preston and on the borough boundary in Burnt Oak.

A further indicator of settlement is the establishment of Romanian Orthodox churches in the borough. A long lease has been taken out on the Old St Andrews Church in Kingsbury and it has a large congregation that spills over into the churchyard on Sunday mornings.  A London based Romanian language newspaper is distributed and there is a community notice board in addition to the services which are attended by many family groups.

I read the committee an e-mail from a local Romanian in reaction to the report. She said:

I think the Romanians are worried for the following reasons:

They do not know yet the effects of Brexit for them. eg They may lose their jobs and they will have to leave the UK
There have been malicious newspaper articles in the UK about Roamnians involved in organised crime such as huuman trafficking, beggars, thieves
Loss of benefits for families with low income
Loss of access to the NHS

In response officers argued that the report was the first step in an new approach and was focused on barriers to the progress of Eastern European communities and as it could not cover all of them, looked at the two largest from Poland and Romania.

They said that there had been 'no negativity' at the Round Table meeting on November 30th with 15 or so organisations that serve the Eastern European community and that the recommendations had been welcomed.  They said that there  data behind the report but that only a limited amount was available.   The community was not always aware of support groups but future activity would be based on the community's own assessment of its needs.  The scope of the proposals will be expanded out into the community as a whole and more research would be undertaken. Genevie George, Partnerships and Engagement Manager, who has been in post for 2 months, emphasised that the report was a starting point.

They acknowledged that 'precarious work' was an issue and the need for workers to know about their rights. Brent was working with Work Rights Centre with sessions every Saturday at Wembley Library.

During discussion councillors paid tribute to the contribution of Eastern Europeans to Brent and approved the recommendations.  They thought it important for the council to undertake positive public relations about the Eastern European community and looekd forward to the rpgress of our newest community. In a caveat Cllr Thomas said that the Council had to be careful not to be seen to be doing more for one community than for others in Brent. He suggested that the research and work on this report could have been done by Brent CVS as they had the capacity to undertake it while the Council was shedding staff.

Wembley Stadium due to disappear behind more high rise flats

Brent Planning Committee on December 14th will be recommended by officers to approve plans LINK to replace the present Powerleague pitches adjacent to Wembley Stadium, the Wembley Arena and Brent Civic Centre, with two new buildings comprising 340 100% private rented flats and retail space.

The pictures speak for themselves but officers think the plans are superior to those submitted in 2007 - although a lot has changed in the area since then. Officers say that no affordable housing needs to be provided on this site as it is over-provided on other sites in the overall Quintain development.

Powerleague will be temporarily housed in a 'meanwhile' space at Wembley Retail Park close to the Yellow Pavilion. Incidentally the controversial Powerleague proposals for Kingsbury High School appear to have stalled.

The housing will be 11% studio, 41% one bedroom, 46% 2 bedrooms and 3% 3 bedrooms (yes I know it doesn't equal 100% bu that's what the report says). There will be an artificial grass lawned terrace at first floor level and another terrace on the 10th floor as well as a small public square.

The retail space will allow 'outdoor cafe culture' to spill out into the area.

Wedged between the Stadium and the Arena clearly there will be noise problems but 'acoustic solutions' are planned and potential buyers can't really be aware of the potential problems.

Personally I feel that the loss of the shouts and thumps of footballs from the Powerleague will take away from the atmosphere of the area.  At present there is live football, in a sense, at Wembley Stadium every day. A far better place for the shouts and thumps than at the back of suburban gardens!

The reports says that notices of the application were sent out to nearby owners and occupiers including the the London Designer Outlet, Wembley National Stadium, Hilton Hotel and Raffles House but rather surprisingly at the time of the publication none had responded. There is no record of any representations from Tokyngton ward councillors.

Information blackout on Brent school expansion design and build

Brent Cabinet will be getting an update on the design and build of school expansions in the borough at their next meeting but the public will not be allowed to see any report.

This is because the item has been restricted for 'commercial reasons' under the relevant legislation on the basis that:

Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

As this is 'commercial information' about a public resource it is likely to refer to building contracts, architects fees and other costs which may well be higher than the Council expected and thus require some modification of the building specification.  It could also mean a delay in completion of the expansions.

'Wards affected' are Northwick Park, Kenton and Stonebridge so my assumption is that the item refers to Byron Court and Stonebridge Schools.   The closed down Stonebridge Adventure Playground is currently being demolished.

I would argue that an explanation is in the public interest as the general public need to know of any budgetary implications and their impact on services and parents need to know when, or perhaps if, expansion is going ahead.

Brent Cyclists reveal possible cycling bridge over Neasden Underpass

Brent Cyclists have revealed tentative plans to build a new bridge over the North Circular to provide a safe cycling route between North and South Brent, long an impediment to cycling in the borough. They deserve recognition for their tireless campaigning backed by detailed research on behalf of local cyclists.

Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham Councils show Brent how to campaign on the STP

 It is just not possible for me to go to every vital meeting that I advertise on Wembley Matters so I am posting this account from the Hammersmith and Fulham website of their public meeting on the NW London Sustainability and Transformation Plan.

How about a similar meeting in Brent, Brent Council?


The decision by Hammersmith & Fulham and Ealing councils to refuse ‘secretive’ hospital closure plans was backed by hundreds at a packed town hall meeting this week.

Nearly 700 cheered and applauded the leaders of the councils as they explained why they have refused to sign up to the local NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). Councils across the UK have been asked to endorse similar plans for each region of the NHS, before they are submitted to government for approval.

“The STP is a deeply cynical re-hash of the earlier flawed plans which now proposes to close Charing Cross Hospital in 2021,” said Cllr Stephen Cowan, Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council.

“There are no good arguments for demolishing Charing Cross or for selling off much of the land and replacing it with an urgent care clinic just 13 per cent the size of the hospital. That’s why this administration will continue its fierce defence of Charing Cross and the vital local NHS services people rely on.”

The meeting drew campaigners from across the region who have been fighting plans to close or downgrade services at five out of the nine hospitals in north west London.

Despite the published plans, an NHS spokesman has said: “We want to reassure our staff, patients, local residents and partners that Charing Cross is not closing and that there will be no reduction in the hospital’s A&E and wider services during the lifetime of the STP, which runs until April 2021.”
Anne Drinkell, of the Save our Hospitals campaign, said: “This is a cuts and closures programme. We’re not saying we want no change. But objectively there’s already not enough capacity in our local hospital so closing more services would be unsafe.”

Campaigners were united in condemning the tactics being used to force through drastic reductions in local health services secretively and without public consultation.

The NHS has pressured councils to approve STPs by linking it to the release of vital government cash needed to keep councils’ social care services from collapsing under ever-rising demand.

But Cllr Julian Bell, Leader of Ealing Council, said: “The NHS tried to bounce us into signing the STP. They tried to get us to agree to the STP on the basis of a two-page summary and they told us we didn’t need to see the full document. We insisted, but it didn’t arrive until they day before we were meant to sign it. And once we finally saw what was in it, we understood why. There was no way on earth I was going to sign up to those plans.”

Dr David Wingfield, chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham GP Federation, suggested the STP was not equipped to tackle the health and social care problems facing the borough. He offered to form a ‘grand alliance’ between GPs, councillors and members of the community to confront local healthcare challenges.

 

Save Charing Cross Hospital meeting audience

 

Save Charing Cross Hospital campaigners

Tell Sadiq Khan to take action to clean up London's air

A message from Friends of the Earth

As an asthma sufferer living in London, I can always tell when the air is particularly dirty. And when air quality alerts appeared at bus stops and tube stations all over London last week, the problem was even more obvious. It’s a sad truth that on bad days, I often have to get off my bike to use my inhaler so I can breathe properly. Sometimes it’s not safe for me to cycle at all. This is one of the reasons I’m so glad to see the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, is asking us how he should clean up London’s air.   Have your say about London's air It gets worse. Air pollution puts millions of lives across the capital at risk. It’s responsible for nearly 10,000 early deaths in our city every single year. Sadiq Khan has said he wants everyone in London to breathe clean air. But the options he’s put forward won’t bring down pollution levels fast enough. Right now, he’s asking everyone in London what they think of his plans. This is your chance to tell Sadiq to toughen up his proposals to make a real difference. Tell the Mayor to clean up our air London is our home and we deserve better. The Mayor must protect Londoners' lungs and take the action we desperately need to clean up our air. Many thanks for all you do. Sophie, London campaigner

DETAIL FROM FoE

Friends of the Earth’s views on the Mayor’s autumn 2016 air pollution consultation

November 2016

The London Mayor is consulting on “New proposals to improve Air Quality - Have your say on the introduction of a new Emissions Surcharge and ideas for improving Ultra Low Emission Zone” which closes on 18^th December 2016

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-2/?cid=airquality-consultation#_ftnref1.  

Click here to respond to the consultation on the Friends of the Earth website

Context and timeframe

The government’s recent defeat in the High Court (http://www.clientearth.org/major-victory-health-uk-high-court-government-inaction-air-pollution/ ) found that the government’s plans for Nitrogen Dioxide air pollution did not include the measures necessary to bring air pollution within EU legal limits “as soon as possible” as is required. So now stronger measures will be needed to clean up our air quicker, and the government will also have to re-model air pollution on more realistic and less optimistic assumptions.

Along with the rest of the UK, there will need to be measures adopted so that London will meet EU legal limits sooner than the government had originally planned – which for London was previously 2025 (when these limits should have been met by 2010 or 2015 at the very latest).

In other UK cities Clean Air Zones will need to be in place to ensure legal limits are met as soon as possible, and rather than 2020 as previously planned, this must be earlier now - we understand that 2 cities have said Clean Air Zones can be in place 2018.

And to avoid Londoners having to be exposed to illegal levels of air pollution longer than other parts of the UK, London must evaluate what measures, including having a strengthened and widened ULEZ in place, would be needed for to it to comply by 2018 too.

The Mayor must look at what possible measures could be introduced by which earliest possible dates – the law requires that this must be irrespective of cost or any political difficulty. Critical judgements must be made on how best to protect the health of Londoners and avoid as many as possible of the nearly 10,000 premature deaths a year air pollution is responsible for in the capital.

Emissions Surcharge (ES) or T-Charge

The Mayor proposes this additional charge for the dirtiest vehicles using the Central London Congestion Charge Zone as an interim measure before the Ultra-Low Emission Zone comes in.

We support this charge as it is important to take immediate steps to improve air pollution, but think that this should also include the newest diesels, at least for cars. We also think that private hire vehicles should not be exempt.

Ideas for the future of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone/ULEZ

The Mayor must strengthen the ULEZ so that it is London-wide for all vehicles including cars – not just as is currently proposed to stop at the North and South Circular roads, and with ULEZ standards only applying London-wide for heavy vehicles. The ULEZ should effectively replace and strengthen the existing London-wide Low-Emission Zone. With a London-wide scheme in place for all vehicle types all the necessary levers would be in place and the scheme could be progressively adjusted as needed.

Bringing forward the ULEZ in Central London

Plans to bring forward the ULEZ from 2020 to 2019 are welcome but even earlier introduction must be evaluated, including for it to be in place by 2018 – including as strengthened and widened as per the below.

Expanding ULEZ London wide for heavy vehicles, buses and coaches

This is welcome, but the Mayor must set up the ULEZ to be London-wide for all vehicle types including Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) and cars, so that all the levers are in place and adjustments can be made as necessary.

Expanding the ULEZ up to the North and South Circular roads

This is welcome, but the Mayor must expand the ULEZ out to be London-wide, where the current Low-Emission Zone / LEZ boundary already is, so that all the levers are in place and adjustments can be made as necessary.

Complementary measures needed

Action is needed in London to ensure vehicles are cleaner, but also that there are fewer of them – all vehicles produce air pollution from tyre and brake wear, and cause congestion which is bad for business.

This will require a mix of measures including planning our communities so that people don’t need to travel unnecessarily to reach key amenities and work opportunities, making cycling safer and public transport more affordable, consolidating the myriad freight movements in our city, and not adding to the air pollution problem such as with new road-building.

The Mayor has reviewed plans for Thames river crossings in East London which included 3 road crossings, and while improvements have been made, he is still currently pursuing at least a new 4-lane Silvertown road tunnel. This would mean worse pollution for some places which would not be acceptable – instead a comprehensive package of non-road crossings and complementary measures must be considered.

https://www.london.gov.uk/transport/londons-river-transport/more-river-crossings-all-londoners-0?utm_expid=121236727-13.sQogpOA6RqGkfppc0lk0kQ.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.london.gov.uk%2Ftransport%2Flondons-river-transport

The government also needs to do more to enable London to do more, both directly such as restricting the sale of dirty vehicles, changes to road-tax to discourage diesels, a scrappage scheme for the dirtiest vehicles, and also to enable more powers for the London Mayor and for Local Authorities.

Contact: Jenny Bates, Friends of the Earth Air Pollution Campaigner: jenny.bates@foe.co.uk

Brent Council steps up action on air quality

When Mayor Boris Johnson concealed London's air pollution crisis as much as he could so Sadiq Khan deserves praise for bringing the issue out into the open, with Green AM Caroline Russell providing much of the pressure. Last week's alerts to Londoners demonstrate the seriousness of the issue.

Brent Council's Cabinet is due to approve the Council's own Air Quality Action Plan for consultation. The Action Plan opens with a declaration:

Brent council acknowledges the impact of poor air quality on health and the need for action to reduce or eliminate air pollution where possible. In Brent it is estimated that 200 premature deaths occur each year which are directly attributable to air pollution as well as further unquantified premature deaths where air quality is a factor. We accept air quality in Brent is poor and recognise significant intervention is required to improve local air quality for all. We have made some progress but accept that further work is needed to meet this challenge. Our air quality action plan demonstrates we are taking this issue seriously and will endeavour to tackle air pollution at source or reduce exposure where this is not possible. 

We will demonstrate our leadership by exploring options for low emission neighbourhoods, promotion of low emission vehicles and fuels where possible, reduce pollutant emissions from our buildings and vehicles and develop meaningful partnerships with others to get the most out of our air quality action measures.

We recognise air pollution as a shared problem and everyone must play their part to commit to continue to work with our communities to achieve air quality improvement. As we understand more about air pollution and the impact on health, we want to empower our residents to make informed choices about their options for travel and participate in decisions about air quality in the areas they live and work in. We must commit to safeguarding those at highest risk to provide additional information and limit or prohibit the development of areas where air quality is likely to be made worse. 

Not all air quality improvements can be delivered directly by our actions and so we will develop partnerships with other Local Authorities, the London Mayor, and other agencies where appropriate to maximise resources where we can and realise wider air quality benefits from our actions. 

We will commit to keeping this air quality action plan under review and will continue to identify new opportunities for air quality action in response to changes in legislation or local air quality as the need arises.

Our ultimate aim is to secure clean air for all especially for those at greatest risk or in the worst affected areas in the borough. We accept that this is likely to be a challenge to fulfil, but commit to investing in air quality action for improvement now and in the future. .

Brent's current Air Quality Management Area

The Action Plan acknowledges the impact of poor air quality on different sections of Brent's population:

...some areas of the Borough are more likely to be affected by poor air quality than others as the wider problems of poverty; deprivation and general poor health make people more vulnerable to the effects of pollution. This contributes to an almost 9-year difference in life expectancy between the most affluent and least affluent wards in the Borough. The council is committed to reducing this gap.

Four Air Quality Action Areas are proposed:

0. The revised action plan includes the creation of four Air Quality Action Areas (AQAA) or hotspots, as Neasden town centre, Church End, the Kilburn Regeneration Area, and Wembley and Tokyngton. These areas were selected based on traffic volumes and levels of traffic emissions, and have been identified as areas of planned development and aligned with the priority areas identified in the current Borough Plan. Brent will develop strategic policies and localised focussed air quality measures in these areas. 
   
   

They will:

·      provide extra assistance and support to ensure that all schools within the AQAAs have and use school travel plans, reducing vehicle use associated with schools, regularly reviewing targets for reducing air pollution and establishing programmes for raising awareness; 


·       provide assistance and support to businesses within the AQAAs with large fleets to have and utilise travel plans. The council and businesses will agree targets for emission reductions; 


·      Identify possible Low Emission Neighbourhoods in each AQAA and draft implementation plans for areas within each; 


·      Consider these sites within these areas as highest priority for public realm improvements (such as additional green infrastructure) especially where there are 
 those at highest risk or the most susceptible are located such as schools, residential properties and hospitals 

·       to educate and raise awareness about local air quality; - working with communities and public health professionals to protect and inform the most vulnerable 

The Plan lists detailed action points for each of these areas:

• Emissions from new developments and buildings
• Public health and community engagement
• Delivery servicing and freight
• Exposure reduction measures
• Cleaner transpor

See the full action points in Appendix 1 below:

 

Click bottom right to enlarge.