Another Council Assembly

Last Wednesday saw the first Council Assembly of 2007 - and as I have not posted for over a month it seems appropriate to catch up with events from that evening.

Three deputations raised important issues about services in our community from violent crime to post office closures. Residents from Camberwell came to address Council Assembly about their fears for the increase of violent crime in the area. Camberwell Community Council Chair Ian Wingfield proposed an excellent motion following the deputation which called on the Council to publish its Violent Crime Strategy. Although there appear to be a number of action plans in place there is currently no strategy - and whilst the objects of any strategy may be fairly apparent it is important that residents of Camberwell and the borough generally should be reassured that the Police and Council are working together for a common goal.

Teresa Priest led a deputation of users and supporters from the Maudsley Emergency Clinic. The South London and Maudsley NHS Trust have taken the decision to close the clinic which provides a 24 hour emergency service for those suffering from mental health crises and has proposed that they receive treatment at the Kings College Hospital A & E department. The decision has been endorsed by the Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt. It was quite apparent from the deputation that the service provided by the Clinic is unique and provides a real life-line to its users. There has been widespread cross-party support for the campaign to keep the Clinic with all local MPs and Councillors backing Teresa and her team. Cllr David Noakes worked hard to preserve this cross-party support and his motion received unanimous support.

As I said during the course of the debate, it makes me angry that at a time when there is record investment going into the health service the only headlines which we seem to read about concern department closures and staff redundancies. I hope that the Government has got its priorities right, because when a Clinic such as the the the Maudsley's emergency department is forced to close alarm bells must start ringing.

The meeting gave rise to two examples of absolute hypocrisy from the Conservatives, and particularly veteran councillor Toby Eckersley, who has been put in charge of the Council's finances under the unpopular Tory/LibDem coalition. For years Toby has argued that the Council should work harder to improve its council tax collection rate, and in 2004 proposed that it should rise to 97.5% - a level it has remained at since. The anticipated collection rate determines the amount of money the council budgets for in the forthcoming financial year. So what an amazing turnaround that on Wednesday Toby should be proposing a cut in that collection rate to 96% - effectively condoning the failures of Southwark to collect its council tax. A Labour amendment to maintain the rate at 97.5% was defeated.

But perhaps the biggest hypocrisy of the evening, and perhaps the most shameful vote, concerned changes to the Council's constitution to vary the management structure. Last October announcements were made which effectively deleted the role of Strategic Director of Housing Management. The announcements were poorly handled and the whole restructuring had the impression of being drawn up on a post-it note. Permanent measures became interim, and consultation which had originally been deemed unnecessary was suddenly found to be required good practice! In fact, the changes required amendments to the Constitution, with the Constitution providing that all changes having to be considered first by the Council's Standards Committee. Amazingly although the Standards Committee had not met to consider these changes the proposals were brought to Council Assembly. Shame-faced officers and Executive members sat silently as their unconstitutional proposals were introduced, but proceeded to vote them through nevertheless. Cllr Eckersley has always been a supporter of the rights of backbench councillors and the importance of the constitution, but he was amazingly silent on this subject. Isn't it curious how hypocritical politicians become when they hold Executive office!

Cllr Richard Thomas made the telling comment after the vote that now the Council could get on with delivering services for its residents. Well said Richard, but it is equally important that the democratic process is followed - otherwise why should we bother with elections at all?! It is no good for council officers simply to do whatever they want with no regard to the political impact of their actions - or for politicians to let those officers get away with it.

Council Assembly

The Council Assembly on 6th December truly was a marathon event - finishing after 1 am. It is probably not the best way in which to conduct democratic debate, but we were left with no choice after the Mayor ruled that our emergency motions on the recent changes to housing management should only be considered after the end of the usual business.

There were no great shocks in the outcome of any of the votes: Cllr Humphreys survived our censure motion and the LibDems quickly fell into line behind their Tory bosses. We received really superb deputations from SETAA which provides adult education learning and skills advice in Peckham, and the Southwark Pensioners Forum. I was particularly pleased that we adopted the Southwark Pensioners Manifesto, the result of a great deal of work and commitment by Charlie Cherrill and his colleagues. It is worth noting that 3 of the 5 members of the deputation are South Camberwell residents - our Ward helping to lead the way again!

Perhaps the most emotive debate came after the deputation from the Newington Reference Library Campaign. I have set out the concerns of the campaigners in an earlier entry, but it was truly startling to see again last night the way in which the LibDems have lost touch with the concerns of people who should be their core constituents in Walworth and Newington. For standing up for the residents of the borough who want to see improved access for ALL to the reference library, the Labour Group was condemned for "pandering to local campaigners" by the current Leader of the Council! He went on to describe his many happy hours studying in "The Bod" when he was at University - that's the Bodleian Library for those of us without an Oxford degree! - completely missing the fact that his plans for the Newington Reference library will deny many people in Southwark the opportunity to experience some of the joys of learning by browsing through the shelves of books currently available.This really is a case where the need to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act must be balanced with needs of the current library users. It really does seem that the DDA is being used as an excuse to close a large section of the library to members of the public.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the debate on Newington Library and the other issues which we discussed last night was the complete lack of humility exhibited by the Tories and LibDems. Despite the fact that no party won an outright mandate to run the borough in last May's elections the Tory/LibDem coalition who run the Executive seem to demonstrate no appreciation of this fact and appear to take pride in their confrontational style of politics - turning their anger and posturing against members of the public who are only doing their best to have their voice heard. Perhaps the attitude of the Tory/LibDem coalition was summed up best by my colleague Cllr John Friary - "ill-informed; hypocritical; conceited and condescending"

LibDems want Hairdressers to Fight Crime!

Seriously - you could not make it up! I laughed out loud today when I read in Southwark News that the current Leader of the Council proposed using hairdressers in the battle against violent crime in the borough. Well it has been another difficult week for him!

So is Cllr Stanton proposing that we have crack patrols of hair stylists ready to shampoo and set at the scene of a serious incident? Can we look forward to a short back and sides from elite barbers when we are next threatened at knife-point?

Sadly not! His proposal for their part in the fight against crime is that they should be used to spread the word about how safe Southwark is!

As my colleague Cllr Paul Bates observes in the Southwark News, "Many residents of the borough will find the leader of the council's statments that hairdressers are the answer to crime a little bizarre". Quite!

One of Southwark's new crime-fighters in action!

Albrighton Centre Chaos

Work to refurbish and expand the Albrighton Centre on East Dulwich Estate should have begun in early 2007 and have been completed by the Summer. The work would have extended the centre with the addition of an extra floor providing much needed additional space. The precise extent of the works has been carefully considered by the members of the East Dulwich Estate Project Team ('EDERPT') at many meetings over recent years.

So it was a truly awful surprise to hear at last night's meeting that a structural survey of the Centre has revealed that an extensive steel frame will now need to be built around the Centre as the current structure cannot bear the weight of the additional floor, and that the works will now take 12 months!

To a layperson like me it does seem that the cart may have been put before the horse in this case - why a structural survey was not carried out earlier is incredible.

The impact of this news is significant. If the Project Team had known originally that adpaptation works were going to take up to 12 months they may well have decided on a new-build project for the Albrighton - which would provide better value for money and have taken only 8 months. However, the Team decided to support the adaptation route as it would mean a quicker delivery - 6 months - and demonstrate some early physical regeneration of this Estate to its many residents who have become so disillusioned with the process since it first began in 1998.

I am personally very disappointed by this development and will be working together with my fellow councillors, EDERPT and excellent officers like Tony Hunter to find a way to get this project back on course as soon as practicable, with a solution which meets the needs of the East Dulwich Estate.

Cllr Danny McCarthy

Labour is now the largest political group on Southwark following the decision of Cllr Danny McCarthy, a councillor in Cathedrals Ward since 2002, to resign from the LibDems. Danny cites as his principal reason for resigning the fact of the alliance between the Tories and LibDems in which the LibDems have given up the crucial portfolios of housing and resources. However, from conversations which I have had I know that Danny has been greatly hurt by the vicious way in which he has been treated in recent weeks by his erstwhile colleagues in the LibDem group. It seems that the vicious personal side of the LibDems which was so evident when Charles Kennedy was forced out as Leader of the LibDems nationally is alive and well amongst Southwark LibDem members.

In a truly amazing outburst the current Leader of the Council has called on Danny McCarthy to resign his seat and stand for re-election in a by-election. This outburst is amazing because as Danny has rightly observed, no one in Southwark voted for the Tory / LibDem coalition in charge at the Town Hall, and if Cllr Stanton is so concerned about the wishes of the voters perhaps he should put that coalition to the test in a public vote. After the chaos in the borough's housing department, the £120 million call-centre in meltdown and the Thatcherite Tories being given a free rein to slash council budgets, I am fairly confident what the public reaction would be!

Danny will sit as an independent councillor for the time being, but I hope that we will be able to meet his ambitions and welcome him back into the Labour Party in the near future.

So the current state of the parties is Labour - 28; LibDems - 27; Tories - 6; Green - 1; Independent - 1

Debate.....what debate?

After the public meeting we held on the changes to housing management in the borough my colleagues and I submitted a request to the Mayor for a Special Council Assembly to discuss the motions we were proposing. Although we regard the issue as urgent the Mayor (no doubt under political orders)has ruled that the Special Assembly will take place AFTER the regular Council meeting on 6th December. This means that our motions will not be debated until around midnight!

The issue of housing management is of concern to very many tenants and leaseholders across the borough. This is confirmed by the fact that 2 Area Housing Forums have rejected the changes and very many individuals have been in touch with myself and my colleagues to express their anger over the way in which this process has been handled by the Executive.

As a Group we have never said there should be NO changes to the way housing is managed in Southwark. What we do say is that any changes should only have been introduced after a period of consultation with tenants, leaseholders, officers and councillors. I still think that it is amazing that we will have no dedicated Director of Housing in Southwark, despite the fact that we are the country's biggest landlord.

So the decision to delay the debate on our motions until midnight is another example of this Tory/LibDem Executive trying to stifle discussion of an important issue and exclude the wider public from the decision-making process. If the changes which Cllr Humphreys and his LibDem colleagues are proposing are so robust and cannot be properly criticised why will they not debate them at a proper hour - or better still on another day at a time when the public can attend.

Southwark's Housing Crisis

Last night I spoke at a packed public meeting which was called to discuss the recent changes to housing management in the borough. Although the council is the landlord of nearly 60,000 properties we no longer have a dedicated housing department, which has effectively been abolished and its responsibilities scattered amongst various other departments of the Council such as Environment, rubbish collection and Social Services.

What is perhaps more astonishing about the changes is that they were introduced without any warning, discussion or consultation - even by the Executive who are supposed to make these sorts of decisions!

Only two Executive members seem to have known anything about the changes before they happened - the current Leader Cllr Stanton and his 'A-list' Tory Deputy, Cllr Humphreys. Neither of these seems remotely concerned or apologetic for the outcry which their changes have incurred, with Cllr Humphreys arrogantly determined to press on with "Phase 2" of his Thatcherite plans for Southwark's housing.



Last night's meeting was absolutely united in its oppostion to the changes and the manner in which they had been introduced. At the conclusion of the meeting I indicated that the Labour Group would be calling a Special Council Assembly meeting to discuss the changes. I hope that this will take place within the next 10 days - it certainly cannot wait until the next Council Assembly on the 5th of December.


With tenants and leaseholders experiencing serious ongoing problems with the £100 million Call Centre; with one of the borough's major repairs contractors going bust without warning or explanation leaving jobs unfinished, and with the latest changes to the ex-Housing Department, it really does seem that the shaky Tory/LibDem coalition in charge at the Town Hall has lost its grip.

Newington Reference Library

Last night I attended a public meeting to discuss proposed changes to Southwark's only reference library, which is based in the Newington Library on the Walworth Road. In a well-intentioned attempt to make the library accessible to all and compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act the Council have proposed that the library situated on the first floor of the building should be closed and partially re-sited to the ground floor.

The public can currently have access to 8,500 books in a remarkably light and airy library on the first floor. Under the proposed changes the number of available books would be reduced by approximately 80% and access to the available remainder would be in comparatively cramped conditions on the ground floor.

Cllr Stanton, the currrent Leader of the Council, argued that the alternative to these proposals would invovle the installation of a lift from the ground to the first floor at a cost of £400,000 which the Council could not afford. Although users would not be able to browse through all of the books they would be able to ask library staff to retrieve a particular book if they wished.

Those who attended the meeting and use the library were uniformly opposed to the proposals. Part of the joy of browsing through books in a library is finding a book which you did not know existed. This would be lost under the current proposals and I have no doubt that people would be deterred from using the library as they presently do.

I do not think these proposals have been thought through, and the users of the library should not be placed in the position of having to effectively argue against DDA compliance in order to retain their current reference facilities.

Also I am not sure that the options are as limited as presented by the Council. There are many government and public buildings which are DDA compliant but which have not installed major passenger lifts. It really is time to look again at these proposals and find a solution which suits all users and potential users of the library.

The current proposals can be found here

Camberwell Grove Update

At last night's Camberwell Community Council Andrew Downes, of the Council's Transport Group, gave an update on the collapsed rail tunnel in Camberwell Grove, which is causing the road to be blocked at its mid-point.

Apparently the tunnel is constructed of brick and iron beams. One of the iron beams has a crack in it which could cause a catastrophic failure if action is not taken. Repairs to iron beams such as this are normally carried out before the beam has actually cracked, but in the case of the Camberwell Grove tunnel matters have gone one stage further already! Andrew informed us that Network Rail intend to carry out the repairs to the tunnel in February 2007 with the intention of those repairs being completed in March 2007.

Even when Camberwell Grove is re-opened it will still be subject to a 7.5 ton weight limit which will need to be strictly enforced. This will have to be done by some width restriction measures being taken on the approach to the bridge in order to ensure that no over-weight vehicles can pass. A long term solution to the problem will only be brought about with a complete replacement of the tunnel - which will cause major disruption to Camberwell Grove and trains on the line to and from Denmark Hill.

So we can expect Camberwell Grove to re-open to vehicles with new width restrictions on the road in March/April next year.

Black Business Awards

On Saturday night I had the pleasure of attending the Black Business Awards at the Hilton in Rotherhithe. The event is organised by the Black Business Initiative under the inspirational leadership of Sunny Lambe and is supported by many organisations across Southwark.

The awards prove that with the right support and in the right economic conditions small and medium sized businesses owned and run by black and minority ethnic entrepeneurs can really succeed. The evening also featured and celebrated black entertainment, with the brilliant Gina Yashere acting as host for the evening.

Too often in recent years in Southwark the story about the Council's involvement with BME businesses has been negative. This event simply showed that with a little thought the Council can be a positive force.




It was also great to meet and hear from Tim Campbell, the winner of the first series of The Apprentice. Tim has made a real success of working for Sir Alan Sugar and is hoping to pursue his own business opportunities in the near future.

I presented the award for Social Enterprise to RAP, an organisation working with young people.

Labour Conference 2006

A belated entry following last week's Labour Conference! Overall I think it is fair to say that given the difficulties leading up to conference, it was a highly successful week for the Party, with the mantra of renewal and change on the progressive left being repeated by every speaker.

There were clearly some highlights in the main hall - Tony Blair's valedictory speech reminded everyone yet again of what a superb Leader he has been. Other parties may snipe and sneer about Tony Blair, but the election results he has delivered for the Labour Party are the true testament to his political skills. I thought that Gordon Brown gave an excellent speech which began to explain what his vision for Britain is. He is a politician of substance and has a real record of achievement. I think he will be a welcome contrast to David 'Blair-lite' Cameron.

Bill Clinton's speech on Wednesday morning was also a highlight. His warning to the party that change and progress are the only way forward was a welcome reminder as we consider the future leadership of the party.

And last but not least John Prescott's final speech as Deputy Leader was a real triumph! It is really difficult to imagine any of the current contenders for the Deputy Leadership putting together such a tub-thumping speech! "Traditional values in a modern setting" was once again the core message from Mr Prescott.



Away from the main Hall it was good to see John and Pauline Prescott dancing at the Amicus reception!


And I took advantage of the opportunity to talk to Patricia Hewitt about the "cuts" to Southwark's PCT budget ahead of her meeting with Tessa Jowell and Harriet Harman. She explained to me that the £21 million was effectively being used as a loan to the PCTs who had overspent and that they would be under an obligation to repay the money to Southwark. However, there remain real concerns in the short-term and I told the Health Secretary that it was wrong for Southwark to be penalised in any way for the profligacy of others.

Following the conference I have also written to Ruth Kelly about Southwark's appeal against her decision on the 'Downtown' planning application. I met Ruth Kelly at the conference but for obvious reasons we were not able to discuss the particular issues surrounding 'Downtown'. In my letter I have echoed the views of the campaigners, and asked that she visit the site in any event before making any further decision on this application.

I also met with Ken Livingstone and other London Labour Leaders to discuss the proposed GLA Bill which will give the Mayor increased powers in various areas. I think that this will be the start of a useful discussion with the Mayor.

So on the whole a productive conference!

Interesting Times for Southwark Labour Members

On Friday Harriet Harman confirmed that she will be a candidate for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party when a vacancy arises. Harriet has been the MP for Camberwell and Peckham since 1982 and has been instrumental in raising the number of Labour's women MPs from 17 to 97 and modernising the Labour Party during the 'wilderness years'. At the next General Election parliamentary boundaries will be re-drawn and South Camberwell will become part of Camberwell & Peckham after many years as part of the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency. So we have an interest in Harriet's progress.


Of course, if today's newspapers are to be believed it seems likely that the current MP for South Camberwell, Tessa Jowell, may also be throwing her hat into the Deputy Leadership ring later this week. I have not spoken to Tessa so don't know yet whether there is any truth in this report. However, it is really exciting for Southwark Labour Party members to know that we have such prominent government figures locally who will be helping to shape the next decade of Labour politics.

I agree with Harriet's comments today that the Party should use the forthcoming leadership contest to debate policy and renewal, and should not be afraid of that debate. I hope that members will become engaged with this process. And if you're not a Labour Party member but would like to be involved in that debate - why not join us?

Good Sense on Downtown

Last Wednesday we held our September Council Assembly and debated a number of issues concerning the borough generally - including proposed cuts of up to £20 million to the local Primary Care Trust budget. Southwark has an extremely good record of delivering services on budget, and the Council was united in calling upon Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, to review her decision on this issue. Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell will be leading a delegation of Southwark and Lambeth MPs to meet the Health Secretary on the 21st of September, so I hope they will have good news to report following that meeting.

Council Assembly also heard from a deputation from the Downtown Defence Campaign. Downtown is an area in Rotherhithe which has a long-established community and relatively low density housing. However, the Liberal Democrat administration in Southwark took the decision to sell land at Downtown to Barratts the builders who submitted an application to build on that land. The DDC was formed to oppose that application and the development of the land and they were delighted when the Council's Planning Committee and the Planning Inspector refused the application. However, our very own Ruth Kelly, Local Government Secretary, overturned the Planning Inspector's decision and gave the 'go-ahead' for building on the land up to 6 storeys high.

The DDC's deputation was supported by a motion from local Rotherhithe councillor Lisa Rajan. During the course of the debate on the motion it became clear that the Council's deadline for challenging Ruth Kelly's decision by judicial review proceedings has to be submitted by this Tuesday, 19th September. The decision on whether to issue proceedings lay with Paul Evans, the Director of Regeneration.
As the debate had centred on the erosion of local democracy the Labour Group decided to propose an amendment calling on the LibDem Tory Executive to hold a special meeting in order to consider taking the decision-making power back from Mr Evans so that the decision to issue judicial review proceedings would lie with the elected representatives of the borough.

I have to say that the LibDems and Tories were caught completely off-guard by our amendment - which was merely reflecting the debate and the legal advice which we had received - and reacted with incomprehensible anger. Cllrs Humphries and Thomas descended into incredibly pompous and partisan attacks on the Labour Group which must have left the Downtown campaigners utterly bewildered.

Although our amendment was rejected good sense has now prevailed - and amazingly, the LibDem Tory Executive will be meeting tomorrow (Monday) to decide whether to issue judicial review proceedings! Had Cllr Humphries taken a few moments to think on Wednesday rather than react in a knee-jerk way, our amendment may have passed. However, at least our objective has been achieved, and I hope that proceedings will be issued.

Dr Ola and the Labour Party

Last Wednesday I was telephoned by our local newspaper, Southwark News, and asked to comment on the news that former LibDem and Labour Councillor Dr Ola had rejoined the Labour Party and was ready to pose for photos with his letter from Tony Blair welcoming him.
A couple of phone calls later, but sadly after the newspaper had gone to print, I was delighted to be able to confirm that Dr Ola would NOT be joining the party. In fact his application for membership had been rejected after representations were made by the local Camberwell and Peckham party. Dr Ola should now have received a letter informing him that his application had been rejected.
Dr Ola had lost any chance of joining the Party after he stood against Labour candidates in the local elections this year - and may well have cost us a seat in Chaucer ward where we came within 8 votes of winning.
But Dr Ola's ill-judged homophobic comments before the local elections also raised a serious question mark over whether he could truly be a member of the modern Labour Party. Whatever one may think of Tony Blair's government, I believe that its radical policies on equalities will be seen as one of its truly lasting legacies - and Dr Ola's comments before the local elections were clearly incompatible with the government's approach.
So I'm pleased to report that Labour remains a consistent and progressive party. I do get concerned that with the rantings of some local bloggers, residents might think that politics is only about personality. It is not and should not be. It's about policy and how policy can change people's lives.
Yesterday I was really inspired by Tony Blair's speech to the Progress conference. His analysis of Labour's need to identify the priorities for the next decade and offer policy positions to deal with those priorities is fundamental. I still think that the main opposition parties struggle to deal with the fact that we are approaching 2007 and not fighting the same battles as 1997. The Tories under David Cameron are working to identify the issues - but seem bereft of any policy response which takes heed of the fact that modern politics should be underpinned by social justice. And I simply do not know where the LibDems are. There seems to be some thinking about progressive taxation but they certainly do not seem to have identifed their political priorities or what they hope to achieve in response to those priorities.
Security and migration; pensions; democratic reform and the fact that everything we do in Britain is affected by and has repurcussions for our near and distant neighbours are some of the real challenges we face. I'm looking forward to the debate within Labour on these and many other policy issues in the months ahead!

A bit more about those ASBOs

Last night I chaired our local Neighbourhood Police Panel. The agenda covered a review of the priorities which the Panel had set for our local Safer Neighbourhood Team in July and which included tackling the continued anti-social behaviour on the East Dulwich Estate. The Police reported that since the identities of the four young men subject to ASBOs on the Estate had been revealed in the South London Press together with their photos and the terms of their ASBOs, a number of residents on the Estate had come forward to inform the Police of other breaches. These residents - who had been unaware of the ASBOs before the SLP published the details - were now willing to give statements to the Police.
I will resist the temptation to say "I told you so", but it does appear clear that the public response to so-called 'naming and shaming' has been positive and resulted in an increase in community involvement in enforcing the ASBOs on the Estate.
What was equally interesting was the reaction of the other local residents on the Panel last night to this news. Put simply they wanted to know why the Council was not telling the community when ASBOs had been obtained and what the terms of those ASBOs are?
I cannot offer any rational answer as the benefits of giving the public this information seem overwhelming. So perhaps it is time that the LibDem / Tory coalition in charge of Southwark sorted out its muddled thinking on this matter, stopped posturing and started valuing our residents more than their failed political dogma. Come on Cllr Stanton - you've lost the argument on this one!

"Naming and Shaming" Debate

Last Friday the South London Press ('SLP') printed the names and photographs of the four young men who are subject to ASBOs on the East Dulwich Estate. The decision to publish the information together with details about the terms of the individual ASBOs appears to have been the result of the increasing concern which residents on the East Dulwich Estate have expressed about the failure of the Council and Police to enforce the terms of the ASBOs - and the fact that so many residents on the Estate were completely ignorant of the fact that any ASBOs had been obtained. I have previously called on the Council to keep the Estate's residents informed but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
The SLP's decision to publish the details on Friday gave me no pleasure - I believe that it is primarily the Council's role to keep local residents informed of issues concerning anti-social behaviour in their communities and that the local newspapers should not need to be used for these purposes. But I believe that my view as to the need to identify individuals subject to ASBOs and the terms of those orders is shared by the majority of people across Southwark and by the borough's Police Commander.
An idea persists that ASBOs and implementing them is in some way illiberal. I disagree compeletely with this argument as it simply places the rights and freedoms of those who are subject to ASBOs above the rights and freedoms of their victims and other affected residents. Society is not perfect and sadly there are occasions when some people fall into circumstances which cause them to be alienated from the mainstream. This alenation can manifest itself through criminal or anti-social behaviour. But would we be helping these people if we simply forgave them their behaviour and took no action or would we, in fact, be condemning them to an ever-increasing cycle of alienation? Whatever we may think at times we do have a developed and effective sytem for helping those in need in the UK, and this system of support and help - manifested in so many government and voluntary agencies - is there if people seek its assistance. Sometimes it can be the intervention of the Police and courts which connects people with the support systems they need. So if we accept that we do have an effective support system, we must also recognise that it is necessary to have a system for punishing wrong-doers and those who indulge in persistent anti-social behaviour. Crudely put, there can be no carrot without the stick!
We hear a lot of complaints about the illiberalism of this government - but people are rather more reluctant to praise the record investment which has been made in so many of the country's most deprived communities - including our own, and the genuinely positive effect which that investment is having.
In so many ways we live in more liberal times when genuine equality and equality of opportunity are cherished. Let's not forget that before condemning ASBOs too readily.

Goose Green - Public Consultation

In May this year Veronica and I conducted a survey of residents in South Camberwell who lived near Goose Green concerning some of the changes which had been made to the Green over the past 12 months. We used the results of that survey to draw the Council's attention to a number of issues which we believed required attention - such as the colour of some of the new railings and the dedicated 'dogs area'.
Now it seems that the Parks Department has used our survey as the basis for a wider public consultation - which has a closing date of 4th September!
So if you are interested in the future of Goose Green please take a few moments to complete the questionnaire and return it to Ursula.Allison@southwark.gov.uk
The picture shows Goose Green in about 1905.

Imperial Gardens - the Case Continues

Over the past 4 years Southwark Council has faced criticism and claims arising out of the closure of the Imperial Gardens night club in Camberwell New Road. Imperial Gardens was forced to close as a result of planning approval being given for a residential development on an adjacent site to be built by Fairview Homes. The owners of Imperial Gardens were not notified of the planning application submitted by Fairview Homes, and the existence of the club was not brought to the attention of the members of the Planning Committee considering Fairview's application - despite the fact that Imperial Gardens had planning and licensing applications pending with the Council for a number of years! The Local Government Ombudsman, the District Auditor, the Council's own Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Lord Ouseley have all considered the issues arising out of the case, and all found the Council to have failed the owners of Imperial Gardens in one way or another.
Raymond Stevenson and Lucia Hinton, the owners of Imperial Gardens, have now commenced a High Court action against the Council seeking damages. Given the numerous procedural failures by the Council which have been highlighted in this matter it would be surprising if the Council was not at severe risk on the issue of liability - but of course it would be wrong for me to pre-judge this claim!
However, the case of Imperial Gardens has been seized on by Mayor Ken Livingstone and many others as highlighting the failure of Southwark Council to treat all of the residents of the borough equally - and in particular treating our Black and Minority Ethnic communities in a discriminatory manner. Real damage has been done to the Council's image amongst these communities - who comprise about 40% of the borough's residents.
Over the past couple of years I have called for greater political leadership on this issue from the LibDems, but every time my calls have been ignored. So we are now at the stage where a protracted legal process seems inevitable - and the damage to the Council's image and relations with nearly half of the borough's residents is undermined.
It's never too late to take a lead on issues such as this - I just hope that someone in the current Tory/LibDem coalition finds the time to provide that leadership soon.

A New Chief Executive for Southwark

Southwark Council's new Chief Executive will be formally starting work on the 1st of September but she is already working hard at getting to know the borough and the issues which it faces. Annie Shepperd has moved to Southwark after three years at Walsall MBC and has worked previously in Liverpool and Bath.
I know from conversations with her that Annie is particularly looking forward to tackling some of the major regeneration projects in the borough, particularly those at the Elephant and Castle and the Aylesbury Estate. In respect of both of these projects I know that the tenants and residents who will be most affected have felt disconnected from the decision-making process, with the council really failing to keep them informed of the latest news about the regeneration processes.
So whatever Annie Shepperd can do to improve these lines of communication will be welcomed by myself and my fellow Labour Councillors.
We certainly look forward to working with Annie over the years ahead.

Anti-Social Behaviour.

Local residents will know that the East Dulwich Estate is due to undergo major regeneration over the course of the next four years. This regeneration will be hugely welcome as it may help to deal with some of the social problems which have arisen on the Estate due to a lack of funding over many years.
One real problem at the moment is the anti-social behaviour of a group of youths on the Estate who are all subject to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders ('ASBOs'). Despite the fact that the youths are subject to the ASBOs with clear terms about what they are allowed to do and where they are allowed to go on the Estate I have received numerous complaints from residents that the ASBOs are being breached on a regular basis - and nothing is being done to take enforcement action. Part of the problem is that only a few residents know about the ASBOs or have any idea what the terms of the orders are.
During the course of the local elections the Labour Party in Southwark complained on many occasions that the LibDem administration running Southwark Council was 'soft on crime', and in particular failed to use all of the powers which are available to tackle anti-social behaviour. During a visit to Southwark in January the Prime Minister called on Southwark's LibDems to use the powers the government had given and in particular, to 'name and shame' those who were subject to ASBOs. The phrase 'name and shame' throws up all sorts of negative connotations about stigmatising young people, but what it really means is identifying to the local community the names of those who are subject to ASBOs and what the terms of their ASBOs are.
Each ASBO is different - and is aimed at tackling the the particular behaviour or problems which the recipient has been causing. In order to effectively enforce any ASBO I believe that the community has to know what the terms of the orders are - so that they can act as the eyes and ears for the authorities who ultimately should be enforcing the orders. Home Office guidance and the Courts support identification of those subject to ASBOs.
If the ASBOs against the youths on the East Dulwich Estate are to mean anything the local community must know about them and be able to work with the local neighbourhood Police Team and community wardens to enforce them. It is time for Southwark's LibDem/Tory coalition to wake up to the demands of the community and 'name and shame' those who are subject to ASBOs. If they do not I believe that the problems of anti-social and criminal behaviour on Southwark's estates will not really improve.