Last night (Monday 9th January), the Lib Dem Deputy Leader in the London Borough of Haringey called on the Council’s Labour leader to support his letter to the District Auditor calling for an independent audit of The Bridge New Deal for Communities.

The call follows months of investigation by Cllr Hoban after concerns were raised with him by residents back in May that the £50.1 million project was being managed poorly.

Since then he has attempted to acquire satisfactorily audited accounts from Haringey Council and the Director of The Bridge NDC who, whilst insisting that the accounts had been fully audited, were unable to produce them. Following a fruitless Freedom of Information request, Cllr Hoban was left with no alternative but to refer his concerns to the District Auditor.

Residents’ concerns were reiterated at a meeting attended by Cllr Hoban of Suffolk Road Residents’ Association, where he was disturbed to hear the Director of The Bridge NDC project inform resident freeholders that funding for an ongoing programme designed to bring their homes up to the Government’s Decent Homes Standard had been withdrawn because “the Government had clawed back the money.”

Apparently a programme of works had been agreed for both council tenants and freeholders. The cost of these works was to be funded through a 75% government grant and the NDC.Phase 1 had already been completed and phase 2 had been started to the point the contractors were already on site; the pilot home was nearing completion and several council tenants were to have their new double glazed windows installed on Monday 14th November.

Last night, an oral question tabled by Cllr Hoban to the executive member for housing concerning this issue was not heard due to filibustering by Labour councillors.

Cllr Hoban comments:

“It is clear from the high level of dissatisfaction from residents in the NDC area, evidenced by a 600 strong signed petition to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asking for an independent investigation, that there are some serious questions to be answered concerning the way in which Haringey Council are managing the delivery of this £50 million programme. Nothing less than a fully independent forensic investigation of the NDC accounts will do to reassure residents and councillors that the funds are being spent appropriately.”

At last night’s Haringey Council meeting, the opposition Lib Dems announced they were appointing two councillors to the Alexandra Palace Board.

Until now, the Lib Dems have not taken up their positions on the Board due to concerns about its constitutional position, powers, and structure. Despite promising to address these, Labour have never done so.

Lib Dems say that while all councillors should be entitled to information on what is happening at the Palace, this has been consistently refused. Over the last four years, the Lib Dems have made numerous requests for information on the accounts, and most recently on the nature of the unsuccessful bids. The Labour Council have consistently blocked or delayed answering.

Incredibly, in 2004, Councillor Bob Hare was refused access to the accounts which he had asked to see within the statutory open period (see note 3).

Recently, the Lib Dems have become more and more concerned at the process the Labour-run Board has set for the sale of Ally Pally. In particular, it has become increasingly clear that the timetable and approach were not set to ensure the best result for the charity but rather to fit with the Haringey Council elections in May.

It is as a result of these concerns that the Lib Dems have made two appointments to the Board, Councillor Bob Hare and Councillor Wayne Hoban (note 4).

Councillor Bob Hare comments:

“Lib Dems have always argued that there is an inherent conflict of interest for members of the Council sitting on the Alexandra Park and Palace Board which the Labour Council have never satisfactorily resolved. The resulting arrangements have not served either the Council or the Alexandra Palace and Park charity well in recent years.”

Councillor Wayne Hoban adds:

“There are major decisions to be taken in relation to the Palace, and Lib Dem members must be in full and immediate possession of the facts. We have faced consistent obstacles in recent years to requests for information about affairs at the Palace. Labour have run the Palace at a very low ebb, and repeatedly mismanaged and missed vital opportunities to get the building working properly. With that track record, the decision on the sale of the lease is too important to leave to them.”

Councillor Neil Williams, Leader of the Lib Dems, also says:

“The challenge to Labour is that they will now have to provide information that has been unacceptably withheld. All councillors should have been entitled to information on what is going on. Having to drag this out of the Council using Freedom of Information requests, or by referring matters to the Charity Commission, is a slow process. That is why we are joining the Board at this time.”

Notes1) Haringey Council is the corporate trustee of the Alexandra Park and Palace Trust, which is a charity. The Board is a sub-committee of the Council, to which the Council have devolved all of the Council’s powers in relation to APP. While in complete agreement with the transfer of powers to a sub-committee for day to day decision-making, the complete transfer of powers brings with it fundamental questions including:

Who are the trustees?

Who takes the major decisions?

What involvement and responsibilities do the nearly 50 members of the Council who are not members of the sub-committee have?

2) The Council previously agreed it would seek the directions of the courts on these questions of trusteeship, but has failed to do so, instead preferring to obtain repetitive advice from the same legal chambers.

3) In 2004, the annual statutory period during which the accounts of the Council and the APP Trust were open to examination fell in the period immediately leading up to the November fireworks display. Councillor Hare was asked if he would change the date of his requested visit to the week following the fireworks, and was given an undertaking by the General Manager that he would be able to see the accounts then. When he arrived, he was refused access on the grounds that the he was outside the statutory period.

4) Councillor Wayne Hoban is Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems, and has been on the APP Statutory Advisory Committee since being elected to the Council in 2002 , he was also Deputy Chair of the Committee last year.

Councillor Bob Hare has been Lib Dem spokesperson on Alexandra Palace since 2002, attending nearly all meetings of the Board, also of the Statutory Advisory and Consultative Committees.

Lib Dem councillors are seeking answers to a number of questions regarding the Council’s handling of the skate park project in Priory Park, N8.

Labour-run Haringey Council has left a number of questions unanswered over the past year with much of the project shrouded by a veil of secrecy which has angered ward councillors and residents who have been not been kept abreast of developments despite persistent requests for information.

Lib Dem councillor for Muswell Hill Gail Engert is particularly keen to find out why Haringey Council did not follow up Thames Waters concerns about the structural suitability of the site, made in March 2005, until November 2005.

She says that considering the speed at which these development plans have progressed it concerns her that money has been spent on a development which until November had not been given the all clear.

This latest question came following confusion over the Council’s response to a question at a meeting late last year in which they claimed they had not received a decisive response from Thames Water over the suitability of the site.

However further probing from Cllr Engert has revealed that Haringey Council received correspondence from Thames Water voicing their concerns over the suitability of the site.

She says that the Council’s secrecy and vagueness over this project to-date has bred further concern from local residents who feel, along with their Lib Dem representatives, that they have not been consulted adequately over the development.

Cllr Engert along with Lib Dem councillor for Crouch End David Winskill and Lynne Featherstone MP will continue to lobby hard for residents and ward councillors to be fully informed and consulted on the future developments.

Cllr Engert (Muswell Hill ward) comments, “Trying to get any information from the Council about their plans for the skateboard park in Priory Park is like trying to pull teeth. Not only did they ignore the wishes of local residents, who were against the facility in the Park in the first place, but they are not keeping them informed about developments or their future plans.”

The Lib Dem councillor for Crouch End, Ron Aitken, has written to Haringey Council asking what assessment has been made by Haringey Council with regard to the impact of the expansion of Coleridge School on to the TUC site on junior school places in the area.

The issue was raised at meeting last week (Thursday 6th December) with Cllr Aitken by parents at other schools in Crouch End and Hornsey, who have pointed out that there are vacancies for junior places at nearly every school in the area – and claim that the Council has not addressed this problem in its plans.

Cllr Aitken says that it is essential that all sides in this consultation have their concerns listened to and responded to by Haringey Council.

Cllr Aitken (Crouch End) comments:

“Although there is general agreement that Crouch End needs extra infant school places the picture is much less clear regarding Junior Places or Years 3-6. Therefore I have raised this issue with the Council as it obviously affects the whole funding picture regarding the Council’s plans and is an issue that needs to be addressed.”

Labour controlled Haringey Council is failing to reply to Freedom of Information requests within the legal requirement of 20 days.

To mark the anniversary of the introduction of the Act, Liberal Democrat Focus Editors and councillors have highlighted the fact that in Haringey four out of ten requests are not answered on time.

Councillor Neil Williams, Leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition group on Haringey Council says:

“This abysmal performance reflects the Haringey Labour Council’s commitment to open and honest government. This is simply not acceptable. This Act is to enable people to quickly and easily access information about how their Council is run.This is yet another example of Labour failing the people of Haringey.”

On the day that the Government announced that the national DNA database has over three million entries, new figures revealed by Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson, Lynne Featherstone MP, shows that there are 139,463 people who have a DNA profile on the national DNA database (NDNAD) who have not been charged or cautioned with an offence.

Commenting Lynne Featherstone MP said:

“This is an intolerable infringement of liberty and personal privacy.

“There is no purpose or justification for keeping the DNA record of anyone who is not charged with an offence. We cannot be absolutely certain that there will be no misuse of the DNA Database. There are no real safeguards in place to control it.

“With the growing concern about racial profiling and disproportionality in criminal investigations, the need to keep innocent people on the DNA Database is questionable.”

Note – Hansard 20 Dec 2005 : Column 2890W

DNA Profiles

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who have not been charged or cautioned for an offence have DNA profiles stored in the police national database; and if he will make a statement. [34330]

Andy Burnham: There are 139,463 people who have a DNA profile on the national DNA database (NDNAD) who have not been charged or cautioned with an offence.

This figure comprises: 124,347 people who have a DNA profile on the NDNAD who have been arrested and subsequently not been charged or cautioned with an offence. This information was provided by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) and obtained from the police national computer (PNC) which is linked to the NDNAD; and 15,116 volunteer sample profile records retained on the NDNAD.

A volunteer sample is a DNA sample taken from an individual in relation to the investigation of an offence for elimination purposes and not as a result of the individual having been arrested in connection with an offence. The volunteer must give written consent to provide the sample; and can also volunteer to have their DNA profile held on the database by providing separate written consent for this. Volunteer samples may be taken from, for example, the victim of a crime, a third party, a member of a population identified for an intelligence-led screen or from an individual at their request.