Agenda item

To consider the following motions:

·  Save Southwark Emergency Services

·  DNA Database

MOTION 1 - SAVE SOUTHWARK EMERGENCY SERVICES

(See page 14 of the main agenda)

The guillotine having fallen, Councillors Peter John and Richard Livingstone, formally moved and seconded the motion.

Councillors James Barber and Geoffrey Thornton, formally moved and seconded Amendment D.

Amendment D was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

Councillors Michael Mitchell and Lewis Robinson, formally moved and seconded Amendment E.

Amendment E was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

Councillors Helen Hayes and Andy Simmons, formally moved and seconded Amendment F.

Amendment F was put to the vote and declared to be carried.

The substantive motion was put to the vote and declared to be carried.

RESOLVED:

1.  That council assembly believes that the safety and security of Londoners and the residents of our borough is being put at risk as a result of cuts to emergency services being pushed through by the Mayor of London and the Tory Liberal Democrat government to our key emergency services – the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire Brigade alongside the London Ambulance Service and the city’s accident and emergency departments.

2.  That council assembly believes that the cuts are going too far and too fast and that the many millions of pounds being cut from the budgets of the NHS, the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Fire Brigade will inevitably endanger families and communities across the capital.

3.  That council assembly believes that the cuts are being carried out without consideration of the impact on Londoners’ safety.  The mooted closures of police front desks in Rotherhithe and East Dulwich, fire stations in Borough and Peckham and Lewisham A & E department will mean various pockets of London could see the safety of residents threatened by longer response times.

4.  That council assembly rejects the position of the Mayor of London and of Simon Hughes MP that the scale of the cuts are necessary and acceptable and calls on both to stand up for Southwark residents against the cuts being imposed by the Tory Liberal Democrat government to the emergency services on which we rely to keep Londoners safe.

5.  That council assembly notes that since the substantive motion was drafted the Mayor has published his draft police and crime strategy for London, and that this document makes a number of recommendations which will have serious consequences for Southwark if they are implemented:

(a)  The proposed closure of East Dulwich, Gipsy Hill and Sydenham police stations, which will leave a ‘black hole’ in counter service provision for the residents of College, Village and East Dulwich wards.

(b)  The proposed closure of Rotherhithe police station, which will leave an isolated peninsula community without adequate access to dedicated police resources.

(c)  The proposed dismantling of the neighbourhood policing model such that the current dedicated ward based teams of six staff members (one sergeant, three police constables and twopolice community support officers) will be reduced to one dedicated police constable plus a ‘named sergeant’.

6.  That council assembly notes the Mayor’s election manifesto commitment not to close any police station facility without opening an ‘equivalent or better’ facility in the same area, and notes that the draft police and crime strategy breaks this pledge.

7.  That council assembly deplores the lack of cross-borough co-ordination in planning police station closures which has resulted in the ‘black hole’ in counter service provision in the Dulwich and Crystal Palace areas, which are close to the boundary with four other London boroughs. 

8.  That council assembly further deplores the dismantling of the neighbourhood policing model which will see the majority of officers deployed to high crime areas, to the detriment of the very important and successful community liaison and crime prevention roles which have helped to keep crime low.

9.  That council assembly records its grave concern at the impact of both police station closures and the dismantling of the neighbourhood policing model on vulnerable residents, victims of domestic violence and others for whom the local police station is a place of safety; and on the ability of the police to record crime statistics accurately.  Further, council assembly is concerned at the impact of police station closures on the management of local police teams and the potential for valuable police time to be lost to wards in the south of the borough due to officer travel time from operational bases in the north of the borough.

10.  That whilst council assembly acknowledges the need to make budget savings, it believes the 20% cut imposed by the Tory Liberal Democrat government goes too far and too fast. In addition whilst council assembly recognises the inappropriateness of some current police station buildings for on-going use, for example the current East Dulwich police station building, it is extremely concerning that the draft police and crime plan contains no proposals for alternative provision, no definition of ‘equal or better’ against which future performance can be measured, and no creative thinking.  Council assembly requests that the cabinet calls upon the Mayor to honour his manifesto commitment concerning police counter facilities, and to rethink the proposals for the south of the borough and for Rotherhithe, working creatively with the council and local communities, to ensure that the dangerous ‘black hole’ scenario is averted.

11.  That council assembly recognises the council’s commitment to working creatively with the Metropolitan Police in identifying alternative premises which have the potential to meet police security criteria in the south of the borough and in Rotherhithe.

Note: This motion will be referred as a recommendation to the cabinet for consideration.

MOTION 2 - DNA DATABASE

(See pages 14 – 15 of the main agenda)

The guillotine having fallen, Councillors Graham Neale and Rosie Shimell, formally moved and seconded the motion.

Councillors Martin Seaton and Renata Hamvas, formally moved and seconded Amendment G.

Amendment G was put to the vote and declared to be carried.

The substantive motion was put to the vote and declared to be carried.

RESOLVED:

1.  That council notes that in a fair society it is simply not right that innocent people can have their DNA stored by the state.

2.  That council also notes with concern that since 2004 the UK’s national DNA database (NDNAD) has been permitted to hold DNA samples of any individual arrested of an offence, regardless of whether that individual was actually charged or convicted.

3.  That council notes that over million people, who have never been given a conviction, caution or formal warning are estimated to be on the national DNA database and acknowledges that the European Court of Human Rights found indefinite DNA retention to be in violation of Article 8.

4.  That while council recognises that DNA evidence can be an important tool in criminal investigations, council believes that the indefinite retention of the DNA of innocent people constitutes a disproportionate intrusion by the state.

5.  That council assembly notes the announcement that DNA samples held for innocent people will be destroyed in four months time in May 2013 and supports the Metropolitan Police Service’s early deletion request scheme.

6.  That in particular, council urges council officers to provide a link to the early deletion request scheme on Southwark Council’s website and highlight the scheme in the next edition of Southwark Life.

Note: This motion will be referred as a recommendation to the cabinet for consideration.