Please see my new blog, called Emma Jones: Trying to be green...
http://www.emmajonesharingey.blogspot.com
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Scrutiny call-in on parking
Possibly the most boring title for a blog post ever, but it's late and after a long meeting. However, it was quite an interesting meeting, and resulted in a reasonable outcome that we can work with and that I can live with.
I have blogged here before about proposals that I strongly support in which parking permits will differ in price depending on the carbon emissions caused by the vehicle. Currently, car-owners in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) pay a flat £25 per year for a permit. Our proposal is that there are four pricing bands, with the most environmentally-friendly cars paying only £15 per year, while the worst polluters will pay £90. For this proposal, we have carried out a statutory 3-week consultation exercise. (I believe that it is right that the drivers of the most environmentally-friendly cars still pay something, rather than are exempt, because they still have cars - we want to most reward people who don't own cars at all, because of course they won't pay anything).
A 'call-in' in Overview and Scrutiny is when any councillor wants the committee to consider an urgent issue, which could result in a recommendation made to the Council Executive or Full Council. Lib Dem Cllr Martin Newton led this call-in. The funny thing was though that there was little objection to the actual policy itself, but an objection to the amount and quality of the consultation period. (The Lib Dems are focussing a lot on consultation at the moment, which I believe we should take as a compliment - if the opposition can only criticise the consultation, rather than our policies, then it means they agree with what we are actually doing!)
Cllr Newton was originally in favour of a lengthy consultation, but what eventually went through was a proposal by the committee Chair, Labour's Cllr Bull, that the policy be supported but the consultation period extended from 3 weeks to 6 weeks. It was also recommended that the quality of the consultation be improved. All of this I agree with in principle. However, this of course delays implementation of the policy, and any gains in terms of tackling climate change are therefore delayed. This is a tough compromise that I just cannot make. Plus a delay could also show us as not taking strong enough leadership on such an important issue as climate change.
It was for the latter reasons therefore that I voted against Cllr Bull's proposal (as did Labour's Cllr Bevan). Whenever I am slightly undecided, the environmentalist inside me is always going to win. I believe that the needs of the planet, the future of humanity and global social justice (i.e. we are causing climate change and the poorest of the world are the most affected, so we must act now to prevent this) must always come first over the immediate needs of people. I would have therefore liked implementation of the policy as soon as possible - this would not mean though that the policy could not be changed and improved as it was seen necessary after implementation, including as a result of ongoing communication with the public. But it is better to take leadership on such an urgent issue as climate change, implement policies such as these, then improve them afterwards, rather than hang around for ages and not actually get anything done because we are just talking (a common public perception and complaint of government). Yet the result of this meeting - a slight extension to the consultation period, plus an improved quality of consultation - is actually a fair outcome that we can be happy with.
With most issues - ones affecting only the people of the borough and not the future of the planet - then I am of course in favour of good quality consultation that occurs for long enough that everyone can be involved. But I am also amused by the idea that consultation should be something that happens only at certain times on certain issues - it starts then it stops. Surely it is ongoing dialogue with the public that we really need? And with this parking issue, continuous engagement with the public as to why we have taken this decision is essential. And once the policy is up and running, I trust that the public will tell us what is working and what is not, how we can make it better for the environment, and will overall support the policy. The tide is turning on green issues - it is the public demanding that politicians act now, and I am proud that Haringey Labour is doing so. Even if the Lib Dems make us wait an extra three weeks.
I have blogged here before about proposals that I strongly support in which parking permits will differ in price depending on the carbon emissions caused by the vehicle. Currently, car-owners in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) pay a flat £25 per year for a permit. Our proposal is that there are four pricing bands, with the most environmentally-friendly cars paying only £15 per year, while the worst polluters will pay £90. For this proposal, we have carried out a statutory 3-week consultation exercise. (I believe that it is right that the drivers of the most environmentally-friendly cars still pay something, rather than are exempt, because they still have cars - we want to most reward people who don't own cars at all, because of course they won't pay anything).
A 'call-in' in Overview and Scrutiny is when any councillor wants the committee to consider an urgent issue, which could result in a recommendation made to the Council Executive or Full Council. Lib Dem Cllr Martin Newton led this call-in. The funny thing was though that there was little objection to the actual policy itself, but an objection to the amount and quality of the consultation period. (The Lib Dems are focussing a lot on consultation at the moment, which I believe we should take as a compliment - if the opposition can only criticise the consultation, rather than our policies, then it means they agree with what we are actually doing!)
Cllr Newton was originally in favour of a lengthy consultation, but what eventually went through was a proposal by the committee Chair, Labour's Cllr Bull, that the policy be supported but the consultation period extended from 3 weeks to 6 weeks. It was also recommended that the quality of the consultation be improved. All of this I agree with in principle. However, this of course delays implementation of the policy, and any gains in terms of tackling climate change are therefore delayed. This is a tough compromise that I just cannot make. Plus a delay could also show us as not taking strong enough leadership on such an important issue as climate change.
It was for the latter reasons therefore that I voted against Cllr Bull's proposal (as did Labour's Cllr Bevan). Whenever I am slightly undecided, the environmentalist inside me is always going to win. I believe that the needs of the planet, the future of humanity and global social justice (i.e. we are causing climate change and the poorest of the world are the most affected, so we must act now to prevent this) must always come first over the immediate needs of people. I would have therefore liked implementation of the policy as soon as possible - this would not mean though that the policy could not be changed and improved as it was seen necessary after implementation, including as a result of ongoing communication with the public. But it is better to take leadership on such an urgent issue as climate change, implement policies such as these, then improve them afterwards, rather than hang around for ages and not actually get anything done because we are just talking (a common public perception and complaint of government). Yet the result of this meeting - a slight extension to the consultation period, plus an improved quality of consultation - is actually a fair outcome that we can be happy with.
With most issues - ones affecting only the people of the borough and not the future of the planet - then I am of course in favour of good quality consultation that occurs for long enough that everyone can be involved. But I am also amused by the idea that consultation should be something that happens only at certain times on certain issues - it starts then it stops. Surely it is ongoing dialogue with the public that we really need? And with this parking issue, continuous engagement with the public as to why we have taken this decision is essential. And once the policy is up and running, I trust that the public will tell us what is working and what is not, how we can make it better for the environment, and will overall support the policy. The tide is turning on green issues - it is the public demanding that politicians act now, and I am proud that Haringey Labour is doing so. Even if the Lib Dems make us wait an extra three weeks.
Friday, February 09, 2007
A little part of Haringey in Wales
So much to say, so little time. So I'll just focus on one quick thing that was pretty good, and find time for the rest soon I hope.
Last Friday, I went with Cllrs Sheila Peacock and Kaushika Amin, as well as two non-councillors, to visit Pendarren. For those who don't know, Pendarren is a sort of outdoor activity centre that Haringey Council owns near Abergavenny in Wales. It's used most of the year round for school groups, and is able to accommodate around 50 students in two buildings with dorms, plus teachers. There is also a newer separate building which can accommodate up to 16 in rooms of 2-4, and is wheelchair accessible. On site, they have indoor and outdoor climbing walls and some other smaller activities, then nearby visitors can do things ranging from canoeing, caving, abseiling, mountain-trekking and horse-riding. School trips are well-subsidised for all - very well-subsidised for children entitled to free-school meals - so the idea is that it is inclusive for all. And all kids in Haringey seem to love it.
But did you know it's available for us adults too? Anyone can book to stay for a weekend at any time of the year, or for longer out of term time, and the new building can be booked out completely for a large group. Haringey residents get subsidised by the council, so the 16-bed building is available for only £80 per night! Dead cheap. And the area is so beautiful. Something to think about for my birthday perhaps.
We were going there primarily to have a meeting of the Friends of Pendarren, which is a group of volunteers who come together to watch over the running of the place, and help with fundraising. We discussed some quite exciting developments for the site, including the purchasing of a tipi to be located in an open space in the wood, in which a professional storyteller will perform for the young people, hopefully inspiring their own writing which is also done on the trip. There is also hopefully going to be a pond with walkways over it so that the young people can pond-dip. And the site is going to be part of a local climate change project, so they are going to find ways to reduce its environmental impact. I also want us to do more to ensure that it is used out of term time by youth groups, groups of looked-after children, disadvantaged children, and children with special educational needs.
Anyway, I loved the place. Can't wait to go back and stay.
If you would like to know more about becoming a Friend of Pendarren, please contact Cllr Sheila Peacock. I'm sure she'd also love to hear from you if you're interested in a stall, or in volunteering, at Tottenham Carnival on 23rd June.
Last Friday, I went with Cllrs Sheila Peacock and Kaushika Amin, as well as two non-councillors, to visit Pendarren. For those who don't know, Pendarren is a sort of outdoor activity centre that Haringey Council owns near Abergavenny in Wales. It's used most of the year round for school groups, and is able to accommodate around 50 students in two buildings with dorms, plus teachers. There is also a newer separate building which can accommodate up to 16 in rooms of 2-4, and is wheelchair accessible. On site, they have indoor and outdoor climbing walls and some other smaller activities, then nearby visitors can do things ranging from canoeing, caving, abseiling, mountain-trekking and horse-riding. School trips are well-subsidised for all - very well-subsidised for children entitled to free-school meals - so the idea is that it is inclusive for all. And all kids in Haringey seem to love it.
But did you know it's available for us adults too? Anyone can book to stay for a weekend at any time of the year, or for longer out of term time, and the new building can be booked out completely for a large group. Haringey residents get subsidised by the council, so the 16-bed building is available for only £80 per night! Dead cheap. And the area is so beautiful. Something to think about for my birthday perhaps.
We were going there primarily to have a meeting of the Friends of Pendarren, which is a group of volunteers who come together to watch over the running of the place, and help with fundraising. We discussed some quite exciting developments for the site, including the purchasing of a tipi to be located in an open space in the wood, in which a professional storyteller will perform for the young people, hopefully inspiring their own writing which is also done on the trip. There is also hopefully going to be a pond with walkways over it so that the young people can pond-dip. And the site is going to be part of a local climate change project, so they are going to find ways to reduce its environmental impact. I also want us to do more to ensure that it is used out of term time by youth groups, groups of looked-after children, disadvantaged children, and children with special educational needs.
Anyway, I loved the place. Can't wait to go back and stay.
If you would like to know more about becoming a Friend of Pendarren, please contact Cllr Sheila Peacock. I'm sure she'd also love to hear from you if you're interested in a stall, or in volunteering, at Tottenham Carnival on 23rd June.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Ode to Dilek
Just a quick note to say a great big HAPPY BIRTHDAY to my colleague and friend Dilek Dogus, fellow Bruce Grove councillor. She works amazingly hard and is an excellent councillor. Have a fab day, Dilek! And take time out to relax :)
Monday, January 29, 2007
Greening up Haringey part 2
Taken directly from the council website:
"Haringey is now using green electricity for all of its street lights, council buildings and schools, and it is also introducing a work travel plan aimed at discouraging staff from driving to work wherever possible.
Other examples of environmentally friendly activity include the production of a Greening Your Home leaflet for residents and the introduction of solar-powered parking meters across the borough."
Told you: we mean business.
"Haringey is now using green electricity for all of its street lights, council buildings and schools, and it is also introducing a work travel plan aimed at discouraging staff from driving to work wherever possible.
Other examples of environmentally friendly activity include the production of a Greening Your Home leaflet for residents and the introduction of solar-powered parking meters across the borough."
Told you: we mean business.
Greening up Haringey - parking permit changes
Can't seem to shake off this awful cold, so taken the day off sick with a box of tissues by my side. Thought then that I could tell you about proposed changes to the fees for parking permits, which I am in full support of. Currently, everyone who needs a parking permit pays a flat fee of £25 per year - cheaper actually than the original £50 that it was. But the proposal is that the fee is variable depending on the amount of carbon emissions produced by the vehicle, and that you have to pay more if you choose to have more than one car. Haringey is one of the first local authorities in the country to propose a system like this, and it is part of our aim of being the "greenest borough" and our having signed the Nottingham Declaration, which commits us to doing what we can to tackle climate change.
The sliding scale will be as follows, and prices are per household:
Up to 100 CO2g/km - £15 for first car, £15 for each additional (a reduction on current costs).
101-150 CO2g/km - £30 for first car, £60 for each additional.
151-185 CO2g/km - £60 for first car, £100 for each additional.
186 CO2g/km and over - £90 for first car, £150 for each additional.
If you have more than one car, then the least emitting car counts as the first car, so that you have to pay more for the more emitting car, e.g. if you have a low-emitting Smart diesel car and a 4x4, you will pay £15 for the diesel car and £150 for the 4x4. Better really to just not have the 4x4 eh?
In addition, there is the complication that cars registered before 23rd March 2001 do not have their emissions documented, so the fees will be done on engine size, as follows:
1549cc or less - £30 for first car, £60 for each additional.
1550-3000cc - £60 for first car, £100 for each additional.
3001cc and over - £90 for first car, £150 for each additional.
There is now a 21-day consultation period, and the scheme will hopefully be implemented on 1st April. I believe that it will really be sending out a statement that we mean business with climate change, and will show other local authorities that there are many things we can do to tackle the problem on a local level.
The sliding scale will be as follows, and prices are per household:
Up to 100 CO2g/km - £15 for first car, £15 for each additional (a reduction on current costs).
101-150 CO2g/km - £30 for first car, £60 for each additional.
151-185 CO2g/km - £60 for first car, £100 for each additional.
186 CO2g/km and over - £90 for first car, £150 for each additional.
If you have more than one car, then the least emitting car counts as the first car, so that you have to pay more for the more emitting car, e.g. if you have a low-emitting Smart diesel car and a 4x4, you will pay £15 for the diesel car and £150 for the 4x4. Better really to just not have the 4x4 eh?
In addition, there is the complication that cars registered before 23rd March 2001 do not have their emissions documented, so the fees will be done on engine size, as follows:
1549cc or less - £30 for first car, £60 for each additional.
1550-3000cc - £60 for first car, £100 for each additional.
3001cc and over - £90 for first car, £150 for each additional.
There is now a 21-day consultation period, and the scheme will hopefully be implemented on 1st April. I believe that it will really be sending out a statement that we mean business with climate change, and will show other local authorities that there are many things we can do to tackle the problem on a local level.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Ode to Paul
A very special mention about my friend Paul Blanchard. I know him from when I was at university in Leeds, and he is now a councillor in York. He has been all over the press over the last week or so because of a motion he put to council last week that proposed banning the selling of foie gras in York. It seems to have caused quite a debate which has stretched far beyond the York boundaries, and has even made it to France!
According to Compassion in World Farming, "foie gras is the liver of a duck or goose that is fattened by force feeding. To produce foie gras, ducks and geese have a pipe forced down their necks, through which grain is pumped into them up to three times a day. By the time they are slaughtered, their livers could have swelled up to ten times their normal size. The feeding regime is both inherently cruel and barbaric and has distressing consequences for the welfare of these birds."
The production of foie gras is banned in the UK, but the selling of it is not, therefore arguably we are just as bad as those producing it. So far, the only city in the world to have banned its sale is Chicago, and Paul wants York to follow in their footsteps. While many people are backing his campaign, sadly there are also many who oppose it. Some of the people who oppose it argue from that old "freedom of choice" position that can be used to support almost anything. Others say that, with other problems going on in the city, the council should not be "wasting its time" debating this issue. Hmm, where have I heard that one before?!
Well done, Paul. Very proud.
According to Compassion in World Farming, "foie gras is the liver of a duck or goose that is fattened by force feeding. To produce foie gras, ducks and geese have a pipe forced down their necks, through which grain is pumped into them up to three times a day. By the time they are slaughtered, their livers could have swelled up to ten times their normal size. The feeding regime is both inherently cruel and barbaric and has distressing consequences for the welfare of these birds."
The production of foie gras is banned in the UK, but the selling of it is not, therefore arguably we are just as bad as those producing it. So far, the only city in the world to have banned its sale is Chicago, and Paul wants York to follow in their footsteps. While many people are backing his campaign, sadly there are also many who oppose it. Some of the people who oppose it argue from that old "freedom of choice" position that can be used to support almost anything. Others say that, with other problems going on in the city, the council should not be "wasting its time" debating this issue. Hmm, where have I heard that one before?!
Well done, Paul. Very proud.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
What a pantomime!
No, I'm not talking about another council meeting. I'm talking about an actual pantomime that I went to with years 3-4 from my school on Wednesday night. It was a production of Puss-In-Boots by an amateur theatre group that is part of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Basically, they develop a big production (allowing time off for employees to rehearse and perform), they hire a theatre for a week with professional sets and costumes, they fill it up for two performances a day with school children (I think they target children in deprived areas), they pay for the coaches to and from every school, and they give every child a drink, icecream and chocolate bar in the interval. I don't know about you, but I was quite impressed by their sense of 'corporate responsibility' to the young people of their community. Ok, so the singing and dancing was terrible, but you can't have everything. And the kids loved it. So did I if I'm honest.
And the winner of the award for Best School Proposal is....
Well, it looks like we don't get to make that decision anymore. When I say 'we', I mean Haringey's Schools Organisation Committee (which I'm not on). It seems that, because of Haringey's current school bidding process, the government has decided to change the law. From now on, if the council is one of the bidders for the school, then the decision needs to be made by the Schools Adjudicator at the DfES. So many people believe that the decision of an academy is now inevitable.
Yes, it may sound fairer that the council doesn't have a say in the final decision if they're one of the bidders, but actually the Schools Organisation Committee is made up of a range of different people, including community and faith respresentatives, and only has five councillors (three Labour, two Lib Dem). And the law said that a unanimous decision had to be reached by the committee in order for it to be passed. So basically the new law, of giving the government the decision, is taking the decision away from local people. It is unlikely that the Schools Adjudicator is going to be listening to the views of the local community or the prospective feeder schools. So much for handing power back to communities. And I also think it's just wrong of them to make this new law after Haringey's bidding process is already well underway. Sadly though, I can't say the news took me much by surprise. It'll be interesting to see what happens I suppose.
On the plus side, it is nice to know that the government cares enough about education in our borough to bother with a new law just because of us!
Yes, it may sound fairer that the council doesn't have a say in the final decision if they're one of the bidders, but actually the Schools Organisation Committee is made up of a range of different people, including community and faith respresentatives, and only has five councillors (three Labour, two Lib Dem). And the law said that a unanimous decision had to be reached by the committee in order for it to be passed. So basically the new law, of giving the government the decision, is taking the decision away from local people. It is unlikely that the Schools Adjudicator is going to be listening to the views of the local community or the prospective feeder schools. So much for handing power back to communities. And I also think it's just wrong of them to make this new law after Haringey's bidding process is already well underway. Sadly though, I can't say the news took me much by surprise. It'll be interesting to see what happens I suppose.
On the plus side, it is nice to know that the government cares enough about education in our borough to bother with a new law just because of us!
Friday, January 19, 2007
How have we let Jade Goody cause an international incident?
During some of my more insane moments, I sometimes think I want to be on Big Brother. (Don't worry George - most of the time I know I really DON'T want to be on it). Sadly, the busy late nights of a councillor have meant that I haven't seen a single episode of this series, but from what I've heard, it would be great to be in that house this week just to tell Jade exactly what I (and most people in this country) think of her and her views. So Channel 4, please put someone new in the house who will do this. Then the show will better reflect the range of views that we have in this country, the ignorance of the racist views can be exposed, and we won't have people on the other side of the world getting annoyed with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
