"Thank you to the 28.2% of Camden and Barnet voters who gave either their first or second preference to Green candidate Jenny Jones in last week's London mayoral ballot, and to the 10% who gave us their London member proportional vote, helping to comfortably return Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson to the London Assembly.

"You've helped to make the Green Party clearly the third party in London behind the Tories and Labour, and shown there's a strong appetite for a new kind of politics - a politics that recognises that low pay and inadequate benefits are causing great damage to lives in our society, while the wealthy and multinational companies are failing to make a fair contribution in taxes.

"You've demonstrated that voters can and will chose policies that can clean up London's air, design the streets for pedestrians and cyclists rather than cars, that support small businesses not giant supermarkets and multinational companies, that insulate 1 million houses to cut fuel bills and save carbon emissions.

"Jenny and Darren will be fighting for these policies, and for the Fair Pay Mark system to identify companies that pay both staff and contractors at least the London Living Wage, and for more sensible management of police resources to direct them onto the streets and into communities, not stuck with paperwork.

"Here in Camden we'll be looking to build on our strong vote, looking towards the council and European elections in 2014. We've got a lot to do in building the strength of this new kind of politics, Green politics.

"We invite interested people to join us."

As the Leader of the Council will know, several years ago the Council had a discussion about an ethical investment policy for Camden's substantial pensions fund following questions raised by Green Councillors. We were told that the Council would not agree to avoid certain sectors but instead would seek to influence companies from within. There has been little evidence of this, and now the Council seems to be going one step further in the opposite direction by deciding to invest some of Camden's Pension Fund in Hedge Funds, which are funds unregulated by the Financial Services Authority.

I expect the Leader of the Council will also know that hedge funds have racked up substantial profits in recent years, because of the unfair advantages they have and lack of regulation, and have been key players in increasingly speculative and unstable financial services markets.  Their profits have largely been at the expense of other investment funds. They have played a major part in creating the crisis that led to the bankers’ bailout that has so badly affected our debt situation.

Can you please explain how the administration would justify this decision to invest in hedge funds? Does it condone the excessive speculation and gambling of the financial services sector and choose to support a sector, which many would regard as gamblers who make large gains at the expense of others?

RESPONSE:

The responsibility for the Pension Fund is a non-executive function and by law is delegated (at Camden to the Pensions Sub Committee).

The Pension Fund continues to have a keen interest in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) and the Fund has been involved with the corporate governance agenda since investment professionals seriously started to consider good governance (dating back to the 1980s). The Statement of Investment Principles is clear about the Fund’s SRI policy which is one of engagement. It expects Investment Managers who invest sums on behalf of the Fund to have regard to the impacts that SRI issues might have on the returns of companies held on behalf of the Fund.

The Fund is involved at many levels with the work of the LAPFF, not least via the Chair of the Cross-Party Pension Sub Committee inclusion onto the Executive of the LAPFF. The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum is a group of 55 Local Authorities with over £100bn of assets under management who commission work in this area and lobby for charges to corporate governance issues.

On the 14 September 2010 the Pensions Sub Committee considered the legality of further ethical approaches to investment including screening of certain companies. The legal opinion drew on well-known case law in this area and concluded that moral and ethical considerations cannot be considered in preference to financial returns in respect of any particular investment. Decisions on any particular investment must be made on standard criteria (financial returns, security, diversification etc).

Camden takes its corporate governance responsibilities very seriously and ensures it votes whenever it has rights to. Manifest provide corporate governance advice to the Fund, and at the Pensions Sub-Committee meeting on 29^th November 2011 the Fund adopted a detailed policy on voting guidelines based on principles developed in agreement with Manifest and based on those recommended by LAPFF.

The Fund closely follows the work of LAPFF and the reports back to the Pensions Sub-Committee quarterly. This report has recently been remodelled and reflects the growing importance of SRI to the Fund.

Investment Managers must consider ESG and SRI issues when investing and reporting to the Fund. One way in which the Fund intends to increase the focus on this is to use one of the bi-annual training seminars to focus on SRI and scrutinise managers on engagement and their consideration of the Fund’s policies.

The Camden Pensions Sub-Committee is one of the most transparent, discussing these issues in a public forum and publishes a very full Annual Report. All Councillors are welcome to attend Pensions Sub-Committees and indeed this invite is extended to admitted bodies, unions and retired members representatives (who have all attended in the past). The Fund has recently reviewed its online presence and full details of the Fund’s activities can be found on a dedicated Pension Fund website (http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/council-and-democracy/publications-and-finances/pensions/).

By:  Councillor maya de souza

As the Leader of the Council will know, several years ago the Council had a discussion about an ethical investment policy for Camden's substantial pensions fund following questions raised by Green Councillors. We were told that the Council would not agree to avoid certain sectors but instead would seek to influence companies from within. There has been little evidence of this, and now the Council seems to be going one step further in the opposite direction by deciding to invest some of Camden's Pension Fund in Hedge Funds, which are funds unregulated by the Financial Services Authority.

I expect the Leader of the Council will also know that hedge funds have racked up substantial profits in recent years, because of the unfair advantages they have and lack of regulation, and have been key players in increasingly speculative and unstable financial services markets.  Their profits have largely been at the expense of other investment funds. They have played a major part in creating the crisis that led to the bankers’ bailout that has so badly affected our debt situation.

Can you please explain how the administration would justify this decision to invest in hedge funds? Does it condone the excessive speculation and gambling of the financial services sector and choose to support a sector, which many would regard as gamblers who make large gains at the expense of others?

RESPONSE:

The responsibility for the Pension Fund is a non-executive function and by law is delegated (at Camden to the Pensions Sub Committee).

The Pension Fund continues to have a keen interest in Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) and the Fund has been involved with the corporate governance agenda since investment professionals seriously started to consider good governance (dating back to the 1980s). The Statement of Investment Principles is clear about the Fund’s SRI policy which is one of engagement. It expects Investment Managers who invest sums on behalf of the Fund to have regard to the impacts that SRI issues might have on the returns of companies held on behalf of the Fund.

The Fund is involved at many levels with the work of the LAPFF, not least via the Chair of the Cross-Party Pension Sub Committee inclusion onto the Executive of the LAPFF. The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum is a group of 55 Local Authorities with over £100bn of assets under management who commission work in this area and lobby for charges to corporate governance issues.

On the 14 September 2010 the Pensions Sub Committee considered the legality of further ethical approaches to investment including screening of certain companies. The legal opinion drew on well-known case law in this area and concluded that moral and ethical considerations cannot be considered in preference to financial returns in respect of any particular investment. Decisions on any particular investment must be made on standard criteria (financial returns, security, diversification etc).

Camden takes its corporate governance responsibilities very seriously and ensures it votes whenever it has rights to. Manifest provide corporate governance advice to the Fund, and at the Pensions Sub-Committee meeting on 29^th November 2011 the Fund adopted a detailed policy on voting guidelines based on principles developed in agreement with Manifest and based on those recommended by LAPFF.

The Fund closely follows the work of LAPFF and the reports back to the Pensions Sub-Committee quarterly. This report has recently been remodelled and reflects the growing importance of SRI to the Fund.

Investment Managers must consider ESG and SRI issues when investing and reporting to the Fund. One way in which the Fund intends to increase the focus on this is to use one of the bi-annual training seminars to focus on SRI and scrutinise managers on engagement and their consideration of the Fund’s policies.

- developing new solutions with partners to reduce inequality

- creating conditions for and harnessing the benefits of economic growth

- investing in our communities to ensure sustainable neighbourhoods

- delivering value for money services that are right first time.
All of these are sound objectives. But its in the detail that the new plan is lacking, and full implementation will also be vital - I hope that the Council will show a determination to go beyond talk and take some determined action. I recognise that this plan is a beginning of community dialogue and that it will be developed as we go forward. My initial views and those of Camden Green Party are set out below.
In terms of democratic and strategic leadership, we welcome the commitment to stronger partnership working, a stronger democratic voice, and to involve  the community more. Camden has a rich tradition of community activism and local organisations that needs to be built on.  

We support the plan for a cross-party review of constitutional arrangements to meet the objective for reinvigoration of civic life, and would expect to and welcome the opportunity to be involved in this.  We would like to see a clear set of actions emerge that lead to more open and also a shared means of governing.

Time and time again, people have a sense of decisions being made behind closed doors, of spin rather than simple provision of information and dialogue, and concentration of power within the ruling group. For example, the new Health and Wellbeing Board which could have included people from other than the Labour group, only includes members of that group. The Greens despite having over 10% of the vote are given few rights.

And now the detail of the plan suggests that  Area Action Groups may also go. Addressing these structural issues is critical but what is equally important is culture change, not just more boards and partnerships that often blur responsibility and accountability. We need real transparency and openness.  

It looks as if the plan is to make this change and we hope that we will now see action and not just words.

And in terms of leadership as well as the sustainability objective, we would like to see the administration make it clear that they will take  sustainability into account in all decisions , whether in terms of growth or community centre buildings. The commitment to strong leadership should take this on board.  Sustainability is about justice across the planet and intergenerational justice. We cannot afford to ignore the future of our children and grandchildren or cause harm lightly to poorer parts of the planet. The proposed plan places little emphasis on this.

The stated target to cut carbon emissions by 27% by 2017 suggests that it is not intended to meet the target the Lab administration signed up to of cutting emissions by 40% by 2020. Recent decisions such as to return to commingled waste as well as to take away discounts for electric cars where energy is supplied from renewable sources suggest that all we have is a stated commitment to sustainability.  And unlike even neighbouring boroughs like Haringey, Camden has few plans to really invest in  energy efficiency and local energy schemes, though we welcome it's plans on refurbished school buildings.

In terms of inequality, we welcome initiatives such as an integrated approach to families with complex needs and accessible pathways to education, training and jobs for children from poor families. However, we would like to see a firm commitment to lobby central government to address a number of issues including an unfair system of Council Tax which the last Labour administration failed to change, excessive pay in certain sectors, regulation of the destructive financial services sector, tax avoidance, as well as to protect public services and a fair system of benefits. This may be intended as part of the commitment in the plan to a stronger democratic voice but lets make this clear.

In addition, Camden should lead the way, requiring companies that it enters into contracts with to adopt fair pay structures, including but going beyond the London Living Wage, and seeking to reduce the ratio of the highest paid to the lowest paid in the Council. At last  the pay ratio in Camden has fallen to around  10:1 , which the Greens call for across the economy, but in the public sector we should do better than this.

We welcome the initiatives cited like an Equality Taskforce and a new Education Partnership. We would welcome its consideration of disparities in pay within business in Camden as well we as how we can ensure our education system brings the weakest up to the standards of higher achievers.

In terms of growth, we think that Camden should go beyond whats stated in the Plan, playing a more proactive role in relation to growth and ensuring this is green growth. We would like to see the creation of hubs for green businesses and the infrastructure needed to support this, support for innovative business, and ensuring that education and such business are well-linked up. We would also like to see a far reaching programme of insulation and local energy generation through developing technologies like CHP to make Camden a leader in the field, with skilled residents well-placed in the job market.

In terms of value for money, this is vital in this time of financial austerity. So we are pleased to have this commitment and many of the commitments that fall under it, such as delivering a better and cheaper housing repairs service.

However I am surprised to see no mention of  large procurement contracts such as housing regeneration contracts on which Camden has a poor record. Poor procurement that leads to profits for big companies at the expense of council tax payers and leaseholders does not support the equality objective, as well as being a waste of money. I'd like to see this issue recognised and dealt with. For far too long this seems to have been left untackled.

On the whole we welcome this plan and the opportunity to be involved in developing new constitutional arrangements. We hope the plan will lead to real change on the ground including a change in culture. I also hope that at the conclusion of the consultation process, we will see some significant changes. In the meantime, I look forward your response to the points I have raised.
Cllr Maya de Souza, Green Party

For the cabinet member for community safety
Dear Cllr Hai,
The key points I would like to make are as follows:
1. We were pleased with the dialogue with our young people following the events of last year. But I am surprised at the apparent lack of a clear plan and the means to implement this. Can you please explain this apparent gap in the report. Is the plan limited to listening to what people have to say about stop and search? And if it is, what has the Council's requested from our local police? The Greens would like to see some cross-party and community work on this issue to seek to tackle the causes of this violence in a holistic way.

2. I am concerned about recent reports of gang violence and sexual assaults. This is a very worrying development affecting the rights and confidence of young women. In my view, we need a real crackdown on this. What is being done in this respect?

3. Anti-social behaviour continues to be a real problem, especially on housing estates, and the resource and determination to deal with this appears to be insufficient. Do you recognise the problem? And if so, what are your intentions in this respect?

4. Violence as we all know is often connected with drug and alcohol abuse. Can you explain the likely implications of cutting the co- ordination team and how these impacts are to be mitigated? I remain concerned about the number of off-licences near schools. Is this also going to be tackled?

5. With the replacement of PCSOs for Camden Town and Primrose Hill with police officers, what are the expected consequences? Do you anticipate less local influence  through safer neighbourhood panels? If so, how will this be addressed?

I look forward to an early response.

Cllr Maya de Souza, Green Party

Though there is good news for Netherwood dementia centre, expected to be retained, the New Shoots Centre faces closure, and Highgate will lose its existing building and move to a new one - design and size not yet known, as will Raglan and the Camden Centre.

Cllr de Souza said: "It looks as if this is in part driven by a wish to raise capital and to save maintenance costs. This is no bad thing in itself, but there is a big issue about raising money from services for vulnerable people for upgrading housing and school buildings, especially when Camden has such a poor record for cost-effective construction. 

"There are also possible savings by sharing facilities, but this was always opposed by users and now as separate buildings are to be constructed it's hard to see how this would happen. The other benefit is a Centre for Independent Living, but it's not obvious why building this requires such wider reconfiguration of services."

Cllr de Souza added: "There are many failings in the consideration leading up to this final proposal. Almost no weight has been given to the loss of community which has been successfully developed in places such as New Shoots. These small, human-scale centres where people have a sense of ownership and belonging should not be undervalued.

"Moreover  putting all these vulnerable groups on one site reinforces the message that these people are different from others and can be thrown together. And by reducing the amount of space we reduce the potential to expand our services which is so important especially with an ageing population.

"There are also many unanswered questions. It's not clear whether the joint site will be able to offer services to similar numbers of people. New Shoots were told they would able to put in a bid to run their building, but weren't given the information needed to do so, and had their bid is now not even being put to the Cabinet.

"Why weren't they given a better chance to put forward their proposal? Many excuses have been given for closing their building, saying it does not have disability access and costs a lot to repair. This does not ring true.

"Also, the Highgate Centre with its excellent facilities, was done up in recent years at a cost of over £100,000. We do not know what space it will have after this redevelopment.

We accept that some change may be needed. But this should not be at the expense of the most vulnerable. We also need open and honest dialogue and discussion, which we haven't had.

Cllr de Souza concluded: "The decision should be delayed so that all these questions can be answered and other options considered."

Camden Green Party is pleased to announce that it has selected  Peter Lyons, a former teacher and IT professional who has been an active member of the Camden Town community for 35 years as its candidate for the Camden Town and Primrose Hill council byelection. (This will be held in conjunction with the London Assembly and mayoral election on May 3.)

Peter, 68, who lives in Hartland Road, and whose children went to Camden schools, worked to set up the Castlehaven Community Association, campaigned against the building over of the Leybourne Square open space, and is an active member of Camden Keep Our NHS Public.

He’s passionate about dealing with the problems caused by the transformation of Camden Town into an “alternative Soho” without the matching essential police resources or other appropriate enforcement, and keen to defend local shops and fight a planning regime “that seems to always put developers’ interests first”.

He said: “I was very pleased by the planning committee’s decision to turn down the Hawley Wharf planning proposal, but now the Council needs to ensure that developers know what  we are looking for.  Not more and more  retail space but space for creative and crafts businesses, which mean real jobs for  residents, and multi-use buildings with housing  that ensure that the area is safe at all times of the day.

“I’m pleased  that the Green Party is strongly opposed to the expensive and unneccessary  HS2 high speed rail development, but sorry we are the only national party to take this position.  I am however confident that the strength of the opposition to it is growing. Why should everyone in the country  have to pay £1,000 each  for the short amount of time that will be saved by business travellers and destroys so much of our countryside?

“This is a development that threatens to cut a swathe through Camden, and little attempt has been made to take the damage to our community into account.”

He added: “We very much need to address transport issues, but there’s plenty we could deal with in Camden Town and Primrose Hill for little cost. We need to abolish the one-way system that lengthens journeys at huge environmental cost, and improve the provision for cyclists with a network of separated cycle lanes.

“Also, I was horrified by the leap in council rents for homes of more than 8%, which can in no way be justified. And I’m also concerned that rents for council-owned shops are being hiked, forcing good local shops that we all rely on out of business. Everyone should have the basic retail services they need within walking distance of their homes.”

Green Councillor Maya de Souza said: “Peter would make an excellent councillor, bringing a wealth of experience and community involvement to the role.”

It means cuts to services for older people such as luncheon clubs, for children and parents through the loss of a free play service, and a reduced number of youth centres. Cuts are proposed to managing our parks and services and funding for community centres will be reduced in some cases completely.

There is little ambition to use resources and powers available to work on job creation or "future-proof" our society.

The Green Party seeks to put forward and ambitious alternative based on five key themes:

* Investing in our future: Creating jobs and opportunities

* Safeguarding public services

* Real community engagement.

* A fair and equitable Council

* Cutting financial waste

Green Party councillor Maya de Souza said: “We put forward proposals today that challenge austerity – that seek to invest money to set up an extensive scheme of insulating our homes, creating homes of the future, and skilled jobs for local people. We propose a programme to support local social enterprise that seeks to make the most of the diversity of Camden and all our local skills.

"The Greens would protect social services to key groups, including older people, children, those who are affected by physical disabilities, and mental health service users, and support real community engagement.

"Once again, we argue for protecting jobs and not making further redundancies in order to protect the dignity of people and avoid long term worklessness, as well as a London Living Wage in all our contracts and reduced pay of senior officers.

"To protect our services, we will ask residents to share the costs through a Council Tax increase of 3.5%, which will protect our tax base for future years and give us £1m this year, and we will raise parking permits for more polluting cars and use penalties for persistent recycling offenders.

"Some of these ideas would not appeal to all, but we put them forward in these difficult times as a means to achieve aims that I am sure the community support.”

 Details here.

This legal change would acknowledge that the duty of care  for one's actions when using the road should be proportional to the  degree of danger that you impose on other road users.(1)

Natalie Bennett, also a London Assembly candidate for the Green Party, said: "As a pedestrian and cyclist, I see many road users failing to take the kind of civilised care that they should: drivers who speed up on approaching a pedestrian crossing in an attempt to stop walkers going on to the road, drivers who squeeze past a cyclist when there's inadequate space, just so they can get to the red light just in front of them a bit faster."

"In cases of civil compensation, the legal change would reverse the burden of proof in collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians or cyclists. The onus would be on the driver’s insurance company to prove that the casualty caused the collision.

"Additionally, particularly vulnerable road users, including children, older people and those with disabilities, would receive full compensation for their injuries."

Alexis Rowell, who seconded the motion, along with Islington Green Party member and London Assembly canddiate Caroline Russell, said: "This legal change would bring us into line with most other countries in Europe, countries where far more people cycle, enjoying the health benefits themselves, and helping ensure cleaner air and less congestion for everybody."

"Just this week there are three major cycle campaigns on London's roads. There's a real push to help more people get on their bicycles, and this legal change would help to make everyone feel safer when they do so."

(1) Lord Denning said in 1982: "In the present state of motor traffic, I am persuaded that any civilised system of law should require, as a matter of principle, that the person who uses this dangerous instrument on the roads—dealing death and destruction all round – should be liable to make compensation to anyone who is killed or injured in consequence of the use of it. There should be liability without proof of fault. To require an injured person to prove fault results in the gravest injustice to many innocent persons who have not the wherewithal to prove it."

More information on the Stricter Liability site.

A range of additional Green proposals would leave Londoners with even more money in their pockets as a result of lower food prices, rents and increased wages for the lowest paid (1). Over the last 12 years, Green Party members of the London Assembly have already made Londoners better off by working successfully to introduce the London Living Wage, redirecting money away from roadbuilding plans, and spearheading major investigations leading to improvements in housing and the environment.

Jenny Jones, the Green Party’s Mayoral candidate, said: “In the Green vision for London, the capital would become a more affordable place to live, work, travel and relax. During these times of increasing financial strain, only the Green Party is offering Londoners the possibility of tangible, realistic, everyday savings. In total our policies could save London households £1,500 over the next four years. For many, the money could be the difference between staying afloat and going under.”

Under the Green party’s new proposals:

• Fares would be cut across the transport system, paid for by a new London-wide Pay-As-You-Drive scheme (2)
• Energy bills would diminish through the refurbishment of over one million homes by 2015 (3)
• Rents would be lowered through new co-operative and social renting schemes (4)
• Food costs would come down through an expansion of street markets (5)
• The income of the lowest paid workers would be increased through an extension of the London living wage (6).

Jenny Jones continued: “We have been on the London Assembly for more than a decade and we have shown that Greens can make a real difference to Londoners."

Natalie Bennett, chair of Camden Green Party, said: "If you see our leafletters, do please take a second to get a copy and find out more."

Notes

 (1) £1500 figure is saving over 4 years based on annual average transport savings of £200 a year (see 2 below) and energy savings from home refurbishment of £154 a year (see 6 below) allowing for conservative estimate of annual energy and transport inflation of 5%. Households could save even more if household members are paid a Living wage, pay rent and benefit from expansion of street markets.
(2) The Green Party’s proposals contained in a budget amendment tabled by Assembly members would save on average £40 in 2012/13, before the Pay As You Drive Scheme. The saving with the Pay-As-You-Drive scheme could bring average savings of £200
(3) Annual saving from RE:NEW demonstration projects in 2010/11 was £154 (GLA, March 2011, RE:NEW demonstration projects summary report). Savings over future years would be in excess of this as energy prices are expected to rise, and the Green Deal will deliver more comprehensive refurbishments reducing bills by up to 70%.
(4) A tenant moved from the average private rented home (£1,280/pcm) into the average social rented home (£386/pcm) would save £894 a month, which would also typically represent a long-term saving to the taxpayer in reduced housing benefit payments. For the majority of tenants who will remain in the private sector, better rights and longer tenancies along with a co-operative lettings agency could reduce rent rises to closer to CPI (estimate of 4% instead of recent trends of over 8%) which would mean by 2015/16 new lettings would average £1,615/pcm instead of £1,740/pcm, or £125 a month less (baseline figs taken from Valuation Office for private rent and DCLG for social rent).
(5) Average savings on food could be £465, based on LDA estimate, June 2010, London’s Street Markets. Annual average saving verses supermarket prices.
(6) Moving from the minimum wage (£6.08) to a living wage (£8.30) the average full time employee would earn around £4,000 more a year. 

She said: "It's great to see Camden Green Party taking this ambitious step forward. Camden voters will now be able to pop in to ask any questions they might like about Green Party policies, ideas and activities, volunteers will be able to get involved in a wide range of activities here, and this will be a base for a strong campaign for the Assembly and mayoral election on May 3.

"The Green Party has been taking great strides forward since the election of Caroline Lucas MP in 2010 - membership has nearly doubled - and Camden, with our excellent councillor, Maya de Souza, is one of our strongest areas in London.

"I believe that Camden residents will find our London manifesto attractive. It offers action towards making London a fair pay city, where no one is forced to exist on poverty wages. And it provides practical policies to make our streets safer and cleaner by reducing traffic and traffic speeds. And we have detailed plans to improve policing in the city, not by spending more money, but by using resources wisely.

"With elections on the orange ballot paper being proportional, Camden residents can not only re-elect Darren Johnson and me as Assembly members, but could also add to the Green presence and elect Camden resident Natalie Bennett to the Assembly."

Cllr de Souza said: "Highgate and other Camden residents are increasingly telling me that they want the Green Party to grow in strength and presence - because they find older parties are failing to adequately represent them or reflect their aspirations."

Furnishings for the office have been donated or loaned. There's a lovely history behind one desk, which used to belong to the late David Fleming, one of the founders of the Green Party. It was in his Hampstead flat, and early meetings of the then Ecology Party would have been held around it.

The office is at 129 Fortess Road, NW5 2HR. It will be open from Tuesday-Saturday, 11am to 5pm (although visitors are welcome outside these hours when open).

The analysis shows that Camden would receive £38m a year if a Financial Transaction Tax was introduced (1). That sum could:
- Pay for 699 new police officers (2)
- Fund 7,054 apprenticeships (3)
- Launch 127 new Hybrid buses (4)
- Build a new school (5)
- Or reverse all local authority cuts.

Camden Green Party’s Natalie Bennett, standing for the London Assembly, said: "Boris Johnson is supposed to be mayor of London, but in this area he seems to have confused his role with that of the Lord Mayor, representing the interests of the Square Mile against those of the rest of the city, and indeed the nation.”

The tax - which would raise £10 billion a year nationally with a mere 0.05% tax on financial transactions - is expected to be introduced in other EU-countries (except Sweden) by the end of this year.

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, announced this week plans to introduce a tax on financial transactions in France. The 0.1% - double the Green parties proposed 0.05% - tax will be introduced in August regardless of whether other EU countries agree to do the same (7).

Boris Johnson has consistently expressed his opposition to the tax, choosing instead to defend the interests of the City. During his time in office he has met with bankers three times as often as police (6). More than half the funding for his last election campaign came from hedge funds (8). Hedge funds, financiers and private equity make up 27% of Conservative Party funding as a whole. (9)

Bennett said: "In the Green Party we've been focusing on the power of the Corporation of the City of London, and its influence on national legislation - indeed the City has a representative, the Remembrancer, entitled to sit on the floor of the House of Commons, unlike any other national constituency.

“Pensioners, healthcare workers, the manufacturing industry, the many other constituencies MPs should listen to don't have such a representative - the City certainly doesn't need Boris Johnson lobbying for them also."

Green Party Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones said: “Inequality in London is growing with the economic crisis being used as a poor excuse.

“The Robin Hood Tax is a simple measure that would help ensure our city’s richest institutions make a more equitable contribution towards the recovery without scratching the surface of their massive profits.

“The Mayor of London has played a very prominent role in trying to prevent a Robin Hood Tax being implemented. However the tide is turning in this debate and I believe Londoners want a Mayor who is aiming to spread the wealth generated by the financial sector, rather than keeping it all in the hands of a tiny minority in the capital.”

Ends

Notes to Editors
1. Figures based on conservative estimates produced by the Robin Hood Tax campaign: an average financial transaction tax of 0.05% would raise over £10bn a year, divided equally across the country.
2. Based on average cost of a police officer, including salary and additional cost, of £54,500. Source: Audit Commission report “Sustaining value for money in the police service” www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/imp/aio/1457259
3. The average cost of an adult apprenticeship is £2,700 a year, and of an apprenticeship for an 16-18 year old is £5,400 a year www.lsnlearning.org.uk/emails/files/Research/110017RP_ApprenticeshipsandHE_final.pdf
4. The cost of a hybrid bus is £300,000 www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Item07-Hybrid-Buses-STP-30-june-2010.pdf
5. The cost of building a new school is usually between £15m and £30m
6. See: www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2011/02/11122/
7. See: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16783520
8. See: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/11/boris-johnson-hedge-funds-accusations
9. Hedge funds, financiers and private equity make up 27% of Conservative Party funding www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/09/30/hedge-funds-financiers-and-private-equity-tycoons-make-up-27-of-tory-funding/
10. Photos of Green Party candidates, including Jenny Jones, can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/gplondonphotos
11. A list of Green Party London policies can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/greenpolicies2012
12. A full list of Green Party candidates for the London Assembly elections can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/greencandidates
13. A list of achievements by the Green Party in the London Assembly can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/GPLondonachievements
14. The Green Party of England and Wales promotes the policies of ecological sustainability, a fairer more stable economy, a more equal society, a higher standard of democracy and accountability of politicians to the communities they serve, and social justice on the global level as well as in our own country.
15. Caroline Lucas became the UK’s first Green MP in the 2010 General Election.
16. The Green Party is now the largest party on Brighton and Hove Council.

BY: Councillor maya de souza (January 23, 2012)

The proposals for Greenwood Place involve bringing together groups of vulnerable people with very different conditions and needs - from old people with dementia to others with mental health problems or learning difficulties.  This would appear to be in a large institution which is not of a human scale and which means the loss of existing familiar well-functioning centres, as well as a loss in terms of staff and user relationships. This has led to real concerns amongst users and carers alike about detriment to existing and future service users and the risk of tensions between these different groups.

Can the Cabinet Member please explain: 

·               why it is considered that there will be benefits from a multi-purpose centre on a single site for existing and future service users,

·               what consideration has been given to the loss and detriment that can be expected,

·               the expected floorspace of the proposed centre in comparison with current floorspace (indoors and outdoors) of the five centres, and

·               the amount spent on refurbishing and building existing facilities in the recent past, as I understand that Netherwood is purpose built and that much public money has been spent on refurbishing some of the other centres?

REPLY:

The consultation on the Greenwood proposal is now finished and we are in the process of analysing the responses.  Can I assure you that no decisions have been made.  An interim report will go to Special Scrutiny on 14 March, and the full report goes to Cabinet on 18 April for decision.

 The vision for the Greenwood proposal is to provide new and improved facilities for people in a modern, purpose-built building.  Through providing a mix of dedicated and flexible space, the proposal aims to promote people’s well-being, a good quality of life and as much independence as possible in a safe and secure environment.

Throughout the consultation we have been clear that if Cabinet agree to the proposal, vulnerable people who need specialist care will continue to receive this to the same high standards as currently provided.  The proposal is that there would be individual and separate accommodation specifically for people with dementia, people with autism and profound and multiple learning disabilities and people with mental health problems.

People told us during the consultation that the staff and services are highly valued.  If the proposal was agreed then each of the groups above would continue to be supported by specialist staff, in their own dedicated part of the building.  

We recognise that day care should be based in an environment which feels welcoming, safe and stimulating.  If the proposal is agreed we would involve service-users, carers and care staff in the process of design, supporting clients to create a space which feels homely and reflects their interests.

In response to your question about the benefits of Greenwood, the proposal is about improving and modernising the day opportunities we are able to offer people in Camden now and in the future.  We need to provide new and flexible services to ensure the future of day services when people can chose to spend their personal budgets on a wide range of activities.

Greenwood offers a way of re-providing some of our existing services in a modern, purpose-built and cost-effective building.  These facilities will be able to meet changing needs and expectations in the long-term.

The Greenwood building would also enable us to provide a range of new activities and facilities that would be available to a wider group of people with a variety of needs and conditions.  It could give us the opportunity to create services which are not currently available in Camden, for younger adults with dementia and younger people with learning disabilities and complex support needs, many of whom currently have to travel outside of the borough to use services.

Greenwood would also give us Camden’s first centre for independent living that will provide valuable and much needed advice, advocacy and specialist disability services promoting independence and raising the profile of disabled people across the borough.

In response to your question on loss and detriment, a key objective of the consultation is to understand the impact of the proposal on people.  The options and recommendations in the report to Cabinet will seek to address these impacts and where necessary propose alternative action.

Designs have not yet been developed for the centre so the amount of floor space in the building itself is unknown at this stage.  The overall site area including external space (gardens, access and car parking) for the current day services is approximately 5,600m² with gross internal area floorspace (GIA) of 3600m².  The architects have established that the Greenwood site is capable of accommodating an equivalent amount of site area and floorspace.

The consultation has identified that people value access to gardens and outdoor space and the architects have also presented ideas for including a range of space and gardens for people to use.  If the Cabinet decides the proposal should go ahead then we will continue to work closely with service users and their carers on the design of the building and outdoor space.

In recent years there has been essential improvement work at two of the day centres.  At the Highgate day centre works were carried out in Autumn 2009 to reception, staff office and first floor (including partition walls and change of layout) on behalf of the NHS Foundation Trust.  The total cost of the refurbishment work was approximately £62,000, £50,000 of which was paid for by the Trust.  There was also an associated package of essential health and safety works, including a new lift.  The cost of the health and safety works was approximately £39,000.

Ongoing planned maintenance work has also been carried out across all our day centres as part of the council’s Asset Management Plan.  The most recent of which has been the essential kitchen ventilation works at Raglan that cost approximately £50,000.

Cllr de Souza has previously expressed her opposition to the closures.

Earnings have however increased by very little in the past year, and pensions have increased only by CPI.

This rise will squeeze low income households, particularly coming on top of a substantial increase in fuel bills - expected to be at 14% this year for Camden Council households - and rises in food prices and other necessities over the past year.

This rent rise was pushed through despite the consultation exercise with the District Management Committees concluding that rent rises should be avoided. All of these representative committees (except for Holborn) voted against the rise. Some supported other rises such as car parking charges, and Hampstead asked  for consideration of options.

Despite this, the rent rise went ahead and the right to challenge this through scrutiny was withdrawn.

Though an Equalities Impact Assessment was carried out, in respect of that group most severely affected, which is tenants not claiming housing benefit,  the statement said this assessment could not be done because of lack of data.

Camden Green Party is concerned about the lack of consideration of alternatives, which could include a stronger focus on getting value for money from housing maintenance contractors - which may require a beefing up of council staff who manage repairs.

 We are also concerned about the failure to investigate the impact on vulnerable households including pensioners some of which will not want to be forced to claim housing benefit.

Cllr Maya de Souza said: "These are very difficult times for low income households, with food and fuel prices rising hugely. The administration's failure to carry out a proper assessment on the impact of vulnerable groups such as pensioners is disappointing.

"And as the decision has been exempted from scrutiny the usual right to challenge has been lost.

"The Council should have scoped out some options, as asked for by Hampstead DMC,  looking at increases in other charges such as parking charges as well cutting costs.

"Camden Green Party calls for the 8.1% rise to be withdrawn and capped at the rate of inflation. Otherwise we see the Council embarking down the slippery slope of bringing Council rents over time towards the 80% market rate that the Localism Act allows for. This is unaffordable for a vast number of working Council tenants."

Residents may have seen the leafletters at train and Tube stations around the borough - if you missed out on getting a leaflet this is what they looked like.

Natalie Bennett, chair of Camden Green Party and London Assembly candidate, who moved a motion at the Green Party conference last autumn calling for the abolition of the Corporation of the City of London (and wrote about it in the Camden New Journal), said: "Fifty percent of Tory party funding comes from the City, and Mayor Boris Johnson has been one of the chief cheerleaders for the financial industry, which the head of the Financial Services Authority called 'swollen' and  'beyond a socially reasonable size'.

"Indeed the Evening Standard quoted Mr Johnson as saying: 'Supporting the City of London is one of my most important responsibilities as Mayor.'"

Natalie added: "That would be the City of London which has played a major role in the economic destruction we have seen over the past couple of years - the City which the IMF has described as the world's biggest tax haven, which has used its influence to get sensible regulation and oversight removed to allow the full play of casino capitalism.

 "The mayor of London should, instead of indulging the bankers, be working with national and international authorities to rein them in, and supporting the mechanism of the Robin Hood or Tobin tax to reduce the flow of dangerous speculative financial trading around the world."

Green Cllr Maya de Souza added that in Camden small businesses, which provided employment and critical local services and facilities were struggling to get the funding they need from the banks, while city fat cats continued to enjoy huge bonuses.

 London Green Party is calling on banks to be more supportive of small businesses by ensuring that any part of the Greater London Authority group — including Transport for London— only deals with banks that can demonstrate they are lending to London’s small businesses.

"There's lots of talk of 'rebalancing' our economy, but we've seen no sign of this being put into action in Camden," Maya said.

 Green Party Mayoral Candidate Jenny Jones said: “The Mayor’s support for the City of London comes at the expense of ordinary Londoners, especially at a time when so many of London’s small businesses are finding times hard.

 “As the capital London must lead the way in helping change the culture of banking and lending from casino-style speculation to useful business lending.”

More details on the Green Party’s policies towards the City of London and small businesses can be found here (PDF).

“It’s astonishing that the government has entirely ignored the strong opposition to the project in Camden, particularly the extensive demolition of homes planned in Regent’s Park and the valid concerns further north in Camden about the impact on homes, " she said.

“The government has taken some notice of complaints from rural areas, particularly in the Chilterns, and changed plans to ameliorate some of the worst local environment effects there, which is something.

“Nonetheless, as well as the serious impacts on Camden, the initial concerns about the approach of this  project – that it won’t take one plane out of the sky and will simply cut half an hour off a not-very-long journey; does nothing to create a sensibly integrated transport system that we desperately need; and risks only further concentrating people and business in London – have been ignored.”

Natalie added: “This decision has been made in spite of clear public opposition as expressed in the consultation process, with the key question on the survey having 16,000 responses in favour of the current HS2 and nearly double that many against. (And analysis has shown that 24% of the positive responses were through one organised postcard campaign – see http://www.bluespacethinking.com/assets/user/BST%20Preliminary%20HS2%20Consultation%20Analysis%2010th%20Jan%202012.pdf)”

She added that the additional concerns about putting a further concentration of people into the already extremely crowded Euston station and surrounding area had not been dealt with. “Although if the project is built, it certainly adds further weight to our argument for the greening of Euston Road and its permanent reduction to two traffic lanes, given the huge number of people that will be seeking to reach neighbouring stations and areas.”

It was timely to see an annual update on sustainability at Camden's Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee last Monday. There were some good things to report, such as the Communities Green Fund, which led to growing food on balconies, to a wildlife garden in the Highgate enclosures, bringing lifestyle changes and raising levels of well-being. I was also pleased to see Camden's innovative work on behaviour change through metering (which the Greens have been asking for) in Kiln Place, which saw energy savings of 30%; the report on greening open spaces including roof gardens, which I pushed for in the past few years; and the use of biomethane-fuelled vehicles, which Alexis Rowell persuaded the Council to introduce.

The key asks we now make are for a stronger push to deal with our drafty homes. No-one wants high fuel bills! I have people contacting me from different parts of the borough to say they want action on this front. The Council needs to take a lead on rolling out an eco-retrofit scheme - to insulate our homes and install solar PV -  working perhaps with neighbouring Councils (like Haringey which is already working on this) to lever in money through the Green Deal and take advantages of efficiencies of scale. The Council must also work on developing some local combined heat and power schemes, which can be a good way of getting cheaper power from for example hospital incinerators. These are also all ways to create local jobs, which we so desperately need, and there are some government funding streams to help do this.

Our recycling levels have levelled out, increasing only from 33.2% to 33.25% in the last year or so, a long way from the 50% of the top councils. With  landfill tax adding costs to the Council, increasing recycling with better facilities and services for housing estates, and also for the voluntary and community sector and business, is vital. I’ve also been pushing for firmer action against Veolia when it wrongly mixes recyclables with non-recyclables undermining the faith of residents in the system. The Labour Party said it would improve estates recycling when in opposition but not a word when in power!

Another Green demand is transparency as to the Council’s actions to reduce  its own emissions. Labour’s absolute failure to address the problem of 24-hour lighting on its housing estates is quite frankly shocking. I am sure many people will be interested in seeing what the Council is doing to save energy and to save costs, as it makes cuts to our services.

Camden must also take advantage of the Olympics and the King's Cross development to make iconic changes that lead to further change. Hence, our request that the closure of two lanes on the Euston Rd remains post Olympics to allow for cyclists and trees, transforming the area into something close to a Parisian boulevard, as well as other measures to make this road pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians.

There are many benefits of real green policies – from jobs to costs savings and we urge you to show the determination and leadership that is needed to make real change.

He's gathering strong support from a range of local organisations, businesses and individuals for turning the two lanes on the Euston Road that are to be dedicated to Olympic traffic into two cycle lanes either side of a tree-lined green walkway

Alexis explained: "This idea was inspired by Roger Madelin of Argent who commented at Camden’s recent Air Quality Summit that, when the Euston Road was reduced to two lanes for Channel Tunnel work some years back, people got used to it or stopped using the road."

Natalie Bennett, chair of Camden Green Party, added: "I think this is an excellent plan that builds on the work we have been doing with Islington Green Party on the 'Walk King's Cross' campaign.

"It's pleasing that some railings have been removed from the vicinity of King's Cross station, but there's an enormous amount that needs to be done, particularly to assist pedestrians walking between King's Cross and Euston stations, and attempting to cross the road from north to south. They continue at most traffic lights to continue to be trapped on central traffic islands in a thoroughly unpleasant and unhealthy environment."

Maya said: "It would be a very sad day indeed to see another independent  shop like New Pure Fruits close down, and I agree with Frank Harding, the  Chair of the Heath and Hampstead Society’s town committee that this creates  a risk of yet more chains and the loss of the individual character of Hampstead Village and of our other high streets."

Maya added: "Camden’s Labour administration explains that this has to be done as the Council must seek market rents for these shops. I don’t agree with this. The Council may need to seek best value but when I have challenged them about this and argued that this does not mean seeking the highest rents they can  get, this has been accepted.

"For example, in relation to the new Chester-Balmore building in Highgate Newtown, officers have accepted that they don’t have to look for the highest return. They have accepted that other considerations can be taken into account, such as the sort of shops that communities want and need.  I expect that Camden similarly has a good case for taking into account wider considerations in relation to other premises it owns, such as those in Hampstead.

"I’ll be urging the Council to take a fresh look at its policies and to seek  to keep our local independent shops in business.

"The answer is not huge impersonal facilities but smaller local ones. In my experience from visiting the Jamestown Centre (now closed) and the Highgate Centre it is the personal relationships between staff and with peers that are so important. With smaller centres, service users also have more of a chance of participating in running them in line with the current thinking on co-provision."

"Selling off these assets, as Labour proposes to do, in order to renovate school buildings and carry out housing repairs is the equivalent of sell-offs in housing which Labour so vociferously opposed in the 2010 election campaign. 

"We should be seeking to retain these assets and looking to find cost-effective means of repairing school buildings and housing. Once we have sold off the family silver there will be no way of buying it back."

Maya noted that the Labour council claimed to be "consulting" by offering service users and residents one option, when clearly there are many possible ways forward.

"It is developing a track record of such limited so-called consultations: St Pancras Community Centre has been offered a similar 'consultation'.

"We call on the council to start proper consultations - to begin by organising a meeting that asks what concerned people want to achieve, then go away and develop a series of options that allow them to consider how those needs might be met."

"I’d like to say a big thank you to the 37% of the electorate who voted Green in the Highgate by-election, to all those who helped with our inspiring campaign and to the many residents who spared us time to talk on the doorstep or on the phone. Congratulations also to Sally Gimson for winning the by-election. I’m sure she’ll make an excellent councillor.

"However I do think there are a number of things the community needs to keep asking Sally and Labour in the months and years ahead.

1)     Why did Sally and the Labour group claim to have saved the Highgate Safer Neighbourhood Team Police Sergeant? Other wards in Camden have had to share sergeants as part of the Mayor of London’s unacceptable cuts to community policing. Labour’s own Cabinet Member for Community Safety said that keeping the Highgate Sergeant was solely a policing decision. The Borough Police Commander said the same. The Chair of the Safer Neighbourhood Panel was reported to be apoplectic about the Labour claim.

2)     How can Sally and the Labour-run council claim to have saved Highgate Library when its budget has been cut by more than 50% and the community have been asked to find someone to share the space? The Camden Public Libraries Users Group (CPLUG) say the library is still at risk. The Chair of CPLUG has suggested that if it wasn’t for the by-election the Labour-run council would have tried to close the library.

3)     Why did Sally and the Labour group claim to have saved Kentish Town Library when it was never under threat?

4)     Why did Sally and the Labour group claim to have saved the Holly Lodge Community Centre when the Labour-run council has actually cut its core grant to zero? The management committee of the community centre - who felt obliged to put up posters to correct the misleading impression given by Labour’s leaflets - say it will have to close if they can’t fundraise enough to replace the Camden Council grant.

5) Why did she and the Labour group claim that the £200k planning gain from the redevelopment of the Holly Lodge bedsits would definitely be spent on rebuilding the Holly Lodge Family Centre? Before the by-election was called the council had been refusing to confirm that this money would go towards the rebuild. And there’s still nothing in writing except a Labour election campaign leaflet.

"I understand that Labour wanted to win - after all, Highgate ward is where Ed Miliband lives. And I understand why they chose the date of the election so that campaigning would coincide with the holiday period and the Green Party’s national conference. But I also know that, after all their campaign claims, the community is now watching Labour extremely closely. If Highgate Library is closed or reduced to a token facility, or if the Holly Lodge Community Centre goes under, then residents will know who to blame."