Redlands Liberal Democrats

Chronologies

When you go to a new doctor, or to a solicitor, one of the first things they will do is take a history of events in your case. This happens in social work too, and  "chronologies" play a key role in making sure everybody working on a case knows what's been going on in a child protection case.

It can be especially important when a child is likely to need to be moved to a safe place. The judgement to move a child from his or her home is a difficult one, and may well depend on choosing whether to give the child's carer the benefit of any doubt. This judgement can only be made properly if the history is known, which is why the courts insist on chronologies. Sorry to say, poor chronologies appear time and again as a factor in child deaths

It was with this in mind that I asked the Leader of the Council, the following on Tuesday night:
"What proportion of cases for children currently with a Child Protection Plan have an up to date and complete chronology (as required by section 9.4.7 of the Berkshire Child Protection Procedures)?"

After agreeing that chronologies were important (1), this is what she said:

"This practice can be evidenced through the most recently commissioned independent audit of 121 child protection cases in Targeted Services, the audit found that 87.1% cases had chronologies, of these 84.5% were satisfactory or better. These figures show an improvement from a partial audit undertaken in June 2007 where of 12 child protection case audited only 25% had a detailed and updated chronology."

I'm sorry to say that this kind of answer shows what we're dealing with. Let's look at it again. What it really says is that 87% of cases have chronologies, and of the cases that do, those chronologies are satisfactory 84.5% of the time. Doesn't sound so bad does it? Well, if one does the maths, it shows that only 73% of cases have a satisfactory chronology. Which means that 27% of them don't.
That equates to around 30 children.

Remember this is clear requirement in the procedures (which according to Cllr Lovelock in her answer to another question, everyone but five workers have been trained in), is required by the courts, and is needed for the team to act effectively to protect children

Maybe the question should be rephrased. Let's put it the way the barristers in a public inquiry would:

"Cllr Lovelock, are you telling us that two years after the death of a child, and one year after the serious case review findings were presented, and after six months of reportedly frantic activity, and despite everyone involved being by your own account fully trained, your children's safeguarding department is still not following its own basic procedures in 27% of cases involving children assessed as being at risk of harm?"

There really is no excuse for this.

Safer Reading Campaign visit to Thames Valley Police call centre

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have led a campaign in Reading for a better Police and Council response to anti-social behaviour reports.

One of the issues I have raised is problems some local people have had when reporting crime concerns via the Police's anti-social behaviour hotline.

This evening I joined members of the Safer Reading Campaign on a visit to one  of Thames Valley Police's Public Enquiry Centres (PEC) in Kidlington, Oxfordshire. It was really good to have a number of members of the public and members of Neighbourhood Action Groups with us.

I was partly responsible for the visit being organised as I had led questioning of Thames Valley Police on the subject of the Police anti-social behaviour hotline at a meeting of the Safer  Reading Campaign last year.

None of the three Labour councillors on the Campaign joined  us on the visit, which was disappointing. 

The fact that Cllr Bet Tickner, Labour's Lead Member Communities and Neighbourhoods, did not attend sent out a very negative message about the Labour administration's commitment to improving community safety, in my view.

I found the visit highly informative. First of all we had a question and answer session with Chief Superintendent Liam Macdougall about the the operation of the PEC and how it linked with Neighbourhood Policing etc

We heard that around 2.2 million calls are received by the PEC each year and about 90% callers are satisfied by the service they received last year.

I asked about how the Police call centre and Reading Borough Council shared crime data reported by the public (reply: it's improving), the new all crime attendance policy, and the need to improve the way calls were handled to encourage people to report crimes.

A local NAG chair complained that it had taken weeks to get a follow up call from the local Police team - it seems because they were all on leave at the same time over Christmas.

I raised the problem involving some of my constituents last year who found that when they reported mini motos around Hexham Road to the Police the Council claimed there was no problem, because they had no record of any phonecalls.

According to one of the Council officers present at tonight's meeting this was because the Council requested crime date not incident data.

I hope they sort this out as it was very demotivating to residents at the time when they thought their calls had not been logged. I was reassured that this has since been changed.

We learned from Police officers this evening that every single call is recorded so the likelihood of reports not being logged is unlikely - the problem is more likely to be at a local level.

I was interested to learn that once calls were received by the PEC in Kidlington, the duty to follow up calls fell to Berkshire Command Units (BCU) i.e.  Berkshire West in the case of Reading. This explains why some calls get followed up and some don't - not ideal.

The Police response to our questions was positive and I was impressed by the Chief Super giving up half an hour of his time on a Thursday evening to listen to our concerns.

After the talk we were shown into the area where calls from across the Thames Valley are received (the other call centres are in Abingdon and Milton Keynes). We watched as call operators had to juggle two computer screens and speak to members of the public whilst getting messages to Police officers and response teams - real multi-tasking!

People answering the phone have about 3 minutes to get vital information from callers, as well as assessing which calls are urgent, who might be at risk etc. I think everyone on the visit had a lot of respect for the people who had to make those sort of snap decisions about callers and situations.

We heard how call operators are trained to deal with among other things "silent calls". They could be hoax callers or they could be from people suffering domestic violence. A very difficult call.

Chief Superintendent Macdougall finished by discussing the future of crime reporting, which includes texting and utilising the much-improved Thames Valley Police website.

We left at about 8.30pm feeling a lot clearer about the operation of the call centre, and in my case with a much better insight into some of the problems faced by the Police in handling calls from the public.

Lib Dems successfully press Labour administration for real action on climate change

Last night a Lib Dem amendment was unanimously carried, with Conservative backing, calling for the full financial implications of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy to be annually reviewed. It also called for the progress of the strategy to be examined by the Environment Scrutiny Panel.

The strategy itself talks of the need for carbon dioxide reduction schemes, waste minimisation, and utilising food waste for producing heat and power; all themes the Lib Dems have long been campaigning for. The opinions of the public, environmental groups, and councillors had been fully taken into account.

Current scientific thinking suggests that the actions we take today will not take effect until 2040. Unfortunately, the damage we have caused will ultimately affect us in the near future. So it s paramount that we clean-up our act now, literally for the future of our species.

Cllr Glenn Goodall, Lib Dem environment spokesperson, said:

“Officers have worked hard to produce this impressive strategy which seeks to address the many challenges of climate change.

"But in times of economic uncertainty, it would be so easy to sweep the environmental agenda to one side.

“The Lib Dem proposal ensures cross-party commitment to continual funding.

“This strategy should be the first port of call for the Council when considering the impact of future policies, no matter the subject.”

Cllr Gareth Epps, Lib Dem PPC Reading East and Group leader welcomed the strategy:

“In Parliament Lib Dems MPs campaigned to strengthen the Climate Change Act, and succeeded in part in getting Labour Ministers to make targets tougher.

"It’s vitally important in Reading now that we make sure our road out of recession is a green road, and we use every opportunity to create new jobs that help protect the environment.”

Pavement politics (not about life and death but important nonetheless)

Yesterday evening, my indefatigable constituent Graham Bennett plucked up the courage to ask a few questions to Council on the thorny issue of bins blocking pavements in and around Addington Road, as well as the ongoing problem parked cars preventing bin lorries getting through.

Graham asked a question on the same subject at the December meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, but was understandably dissatisfied with the response he received.

I would emphasise here that Mr Bennett is not an activist, just a concerned citizen. He has been emailing me on and off about these concerns for over a year. I am keen to encourage more local participation in politics, so I have encouraged him to put his questions directly to council officers and councillors in charge.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the saga of the one way system approved by Labour councillors, the introduction of double yellow lines to improve access and missed bin collections on Foxhill Road and Cardigan Gardens.

Anyway, he asked Cllr Paul Gittings, Labour's Lead Member for Environment several questions about bins in the Foxhill Road area  and, according to Cllr Gittings:

"The access problems in this area have eased considerably in recent months probably due to the enforcement of the recently laid double yellow lines and the procurement of a small vehicle that is able to respond to such problems at short notice."

If only this were true. To the best of my knowledge, the problem of missed bins continues in this area partly due to the lack of available parking for residents living around the University campus. Parking enforcment in the area continues to be patchy

The crux of Graham's question was a request to know when exactly the Council plans to start proactively using it's enforcement powers against those residents who ignore advice not to leave their bins on the pavement.

The Lib Dems in Reading have led the way in calling for RBC to use its environmental enforcement powers against individuals and landlords who fail to heed council advice on waste management  over long periods.

I would like to stress that we think this should only happen as a last resort and when it is clear that this behaviour is causing a nuisance to other residents. This relates back to the age-old harm principle put forward by Liberal theorist JS Mill (one of the few things I remember from my Politics degree!)

Cllr Gittings revealed last night in response to Graham's question that a total of 570 'warning' letters had been sent to people across Reading asking them not to leave their bins on the pavement. We are told that 'notices are only used when warnings are ignored'. To date 6 Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued: none in Redlands.

I'll consult Graham on this to get his thoughts, but as far as I'm aware people who have been 'warned' by the Council in this part of Redlands are continuing to leave bins on the pavement. This is causing a real problem for pedestrians, buggies and particularly partially sighted and elderly people.

I have some sympathy for Council officers on this issue after some councils have faced criticism in the national press for fining people for leaving bins out. But what's the answer? Pavements after all are for people, not bins.

It is true to say that in some parts of central Reading, residents have nowhere suitable to store bins. When the Council's fortnightly bin collections were introduced (in October 2006) I expressed concerns about how some residents would fit two wheelie bins into the small  front gardens belonging to most terraced houses. I recall that the then Labour lead member attacked me for raising this concerns claiming that 'this was not a problem where he lived in Caversham'. Lucky him!

I also raised problems with bins via the Environment Scrutiny Panel - however at that time the Panel was chaired by a Labour member so the way the Council's waste collection service was operating at that time was no challenged, more's the pity.

Equally, I am ready to admit that there is no doubt a hardcore of residents in all parts of Reading who prefer to leave their bins on pavements for no good reason whatsoever, causing a real nuisance for pedestrians. What do you do about those people? Changing people's attitude to waste is very difficult.

On a positive note, Cllr Gittings told us last night that following discussions with the Operational Teams managers:

'it has been agreed that Cardigan Gardens will be added to the exception list and bins in this street will be collected and returned to the property.

A small victory, hopefully.

The debate on bins on pavements and missed collections will no doubt rumble on, but I for one am very grateful to my constituent Graham Bennett for getting bread and butter issues like this on the Council's agenda and holding the Council's Labour Executive to account in this way.

I would encourage any other constituents with a bee in their bonnet about Council policy to do the same.

Good news for Council tenants: Labour and Tories back Lib Dem plans

Taking part in a four hour long full Council meeting with a bad head cold is not up there with my favourite things to do, but it was pleasing to discover consensus on several housing issues on which the Lib Dems in Reading have been actively campaigning.

One of these was the Lib Dem campaign to end the dreaded "tenant tax"(negative subsidy is it's formal name) whereby millions of pounds worth of council tenants' rent is siphoned back to Whitehall.

I blogged last week that Labour had performed a u-turn on this issue and are now backing our campaign for national reform to get tenants' money back.

As Cllr Gareth Epps pointed out last week the figure tenants are likely to lose this year is around £5.5 million pounds: money that could and should be spent on improving council properties in Reading.

We pledged support for the Council's average rent increase of 4.9% on condition that all politicial parties in Reading lobby the government to reform this unfair system which robs tenants.

To my surprise, the Conservatives' housing spokesperson, Cllr Terry Byrne, who has hitherto been silent on this issue, piped up last night to support a Labour motion tabled at last night's meeting calling for council participation in the national review of council housing finance and an end to negative subsidy.

Cross-party support for our campaign is very welcome and we hope it will lead to a more just system for Reading's Council tenants in the longer term.

Cllr Ennis has been vocal in his support for Lib Dem housing campaigns in the past, including our empty homes campaign in recent years. The question is will new Lead Councillor for Housing, Cllr Debbie Edwards share his passion?

Labour's motion was based on the national campaign mounted by the campaign group Defend Council Housing and co-ordinated by the Commons Council Council Housing Group.

The motion also included reference to Early Day Motion 355 on Council House Building which calls for councils to be given the money to build 'a new generation of first-class council housing'.

Since the 1980s an estimated 1.7 million council houses have been sold off via 'Right to Buy' introduced by a Conservative government and which continued under Labour since 1997.

At the same time the number of Council homes built since 1997 has been minuscule in comparison to the heady days of the post-war period (with 354,000 built in 1954 alone).

This is one of the reasons Britain is in the midst of a housing crisis; as the Local Government Association pointed out last week, one in twelve people is currently on a waiting list for social housing in the UK: that's 1.8 million households or 4.8 million people.

We are in the middle of a recession and this number is sadly like to increase locally. I have requested an update report on the impact of the credit crunch on housing in Reading to ensure that the Council is doing all it can to support families and individuals at this time.

Nationally, In response to the ongoing crisis, Liberal Democrat Conference passed a motion last year to increase the amount of available council housing. Key sections of the policy are as follows:

• Invest all the proceeds from council house sales in building more social homes

• End the system of ‘negative subsidy’ where council tenants subsidise maintenance costs in other parts of the country
• Support Government-backed equity mortgages to help first time buyers get on the housing ladder
• Pilot Community Land Auctions to ensure that local people get the benefits of new development through improved infrastructure

Read the complete policy motion here.

It appears that nationally, Labour has had a change of heart about council house building, encouraging councils to build once more. The cynic in me wonders if this policy change is partly a response to concerns highlighted recently by Dr Vince Cable, about the financial vulnerability of many housing associations in the economic downturn.

In another important victory for Reading's Council tenants, my campaign for decent neighbourhoods not just decent homes was echoed last night by both the Conservatives and Labour during a debate on the Council's Housing Revenue Account Financial Plan for 2009/10, with both Parties endorsing my call to improve the 'look and feel' of estates in Reading.

Private rented housing in Reading: have your say

Back in November I blogged about a forthcoming cross-party scrutiny review into private rented sector housing in Reading that I have been closely involved in, as Chair of the Housing, Health and Community Care Scrutiny Panel. This has now been launched with the first  meeting on the subject taking place on 5 February.

The Lib Dems in Reading have actively campaigned to get the issues connected with private rented housing on the agenda. Belatedly, some Labour activisits have admitted the Council could be doing more to tackle rogue landlords and other problems, after years of ignoring the issue.

There are an estimated 1,677 private rented properties in Redlands alone, with around 291 of those properties houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). In Reading as a whole, 20% of households live in private rented sector housing (compared to 11% nationally). About 6% or 3250 properties in Reading are classified as HMOs.

The scrutiny review aims to investigate some of the issues around private rented housing and to ask the question: are the Council's policies in this area as effective as they can be?

The Council's emerging housing strategy which I blogged about last year will need to take account of the role of private rented housing.

This is an issue of clear public interest and one where there are a range of views so we will be holding a 'have your say' consultation event as part of the review. This is taking place on 10 February between 6.30pm-8.30m at the Hexagon Theatre on Queens  Walk.

This will be an informal event at which everyone with an interest in this area including tenants, students, landlords are invited to submit their views on a range of issues connected with private rented housing: stock condition, environmental issues, student housing, HMOs etc.

I have set up a Facebook group to promote the review. If you are unable to attend the event but would like to have your say on issues connected with private rented housing, please visit the Council's website where you can submit comments electronically.

Following the event, members of the Housing, Health and Community Care and Environment Scrutiny Panels will be considering the views they have heard and looking to formulate recommendations to the Council's Cabinet on this issue.

Confused.com

Thanks to local news website Reading List for bringing the apparent confusion of a local Conservative councillor on waste charging to my attention.

Cllr Dave Luckett expresses relief at the news earlier in the week that the government's plans to pilot so-called "bin taxes" have hit the buffers.

Cllr Luckett attacks the proposals as an:

     "unfair stealth tax...which could do more harm than just the wallet"

Do we deduce from this therefore that Cllr Luckett is not aware that Reading Borough Council already charges residents in Reading for some waste collection services, over and above Council Tax? 

The Conservative group has been virtually silent on this subject and has been happy to accept the Labour-run Council's existing bulky waste charging policy.

Charging for services is not a panacea for councils. The success of charging policies depends in large part on people feeling they are set at the appropriate level, as well as the willingness of people to pay those charges, and in a recession, that becomes more difficult.

Politically, charging for anything is often wildly unpopular and needs to be handled with care. You only have to look at the recent public reaction to increased parking charges in Woodley Town Centre, where 6,000 residents signed a Lib Dem petition against Tory-controlled Wokingham Borough Council's proposals.

Interestingly, a survey by the Local Government Association this month found that 83% of councils surveyed feared a drop in revenue from fees and charges as a result of the economic downturn.

As times get tougher how many more people in Reading will  undoubtedly struggle to find the cash to be able to afford the Council's bulky waste collection service. How many will dump rubbish in the street because they feel they have no choice but to?

The Lib Dems in Reading have actively campaigned against these charges because we feel they are unfair to people on low incomes, and because they can be have unwanted effects i.e.in that they inevitably lead to people dumping of rubbish in an attempt to escape paying charges. Fly-tipping is not cost-free: there is a cost to the Council every time officers and vehicles are deployed to clear up the mess, and there is a cost to sending rubbish to landfill.

If Cllr Luckett wants to see these the result of Labour's failed policy he should visit the University area of Redlands at the end of term, or indeed any number of locations in the town.

I realise Cllr Luckett is a relative newbie on the Council but unless my memory fails me I recall that he was indeed present in the Council Chamber last October when the Lib Dems tabled a motion to Council urging reform of the Council's policy for charging for bulky waste.

At that meeting, Cllr Luckett and his Conservative colleagues voted with Labour to retain the failed charging policy and against our proposals for for a fairer, more effective waste policy.

I can't remember Cllr Luckett saying anything at all about waste, charging or fly-tipping at that meeting - perhaps he was still finding his feet.

Does this mean that Cllr Luckett now believes that charging for waste is wrong in principle in contrast to his Group's stated position?

Cllr Luckett is right in saying Reading has a fly-tipping problem. I hope this means the Conservative group will actively support those measures Lib Dems in Reading have proposed which will lead to a reduction of this problem.

I share Cllr Luckett's fears that increasing charges for waste collection could lead to an increase in fly-tipping, which is why our motion (which his Group rejected) included proposals to pilot free collection of bulky items for residents in receipt of benefits (currently only pensioners receive free collections).

Obviously, for any waste management policies to work there needs to be a balance between carrot and stick to encourage good behaviour and prevent bad: when people fail to dispose of rubbish responsibly and deliberately despoil the environment  and we have regularly called for the Council to make more effective use of it's enforcement powers.

Ultimately, of course, the real issue is how councils help individuals to reduce the amount of waste they produce. As I said last year, Labour politicians in Reading have been lagging behind in responding to this, particularly in relation to food waste.

The Lib Dems proposed the following measures at the December meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, supported by the Conservatives:

Cabinet should request that officers:

• Produce a Waste Minimisation Strategy

• Investigate food waste recycling and possible fuel production or microgeneration of power

• Set-up a cross party group to improve our recycling provision

• Investigate increasing our trade waste contracts

• Investigate on-street recycling roll-out

So it's clear, the Lib Dems in Reading have been very proactive on these issues.

But can the same be said of Cllr Luckett and his colleagues? Hopefully Cllr Luckett's musings are signalling a new dawn in Conservative activism on environmental issues.

Certainly, it appears that across the Country there is a range of opinion amongst prominent Conservative MPs and Councillors about charging for waste - as Lib Dem Voice revealed last November.

To answer Cllr Luckett's question, the Lib Dem position, as stated by Julia Goldsworthy MP last February is that the government should leave it up to local authorities to decide what is best for their areas, rather than imposing charging policies on them.

Lib Dems demand action for Council tenants and another Labour u-turn

I wrote in December about Labour councillors on Reading Borough Council publicly endorsing Lib Dem housing campaigns, when previously they had attacked them.

Well, they're at it again this week, apparently supporting our campaign for an end to the hated "Tenant Tax" whereby a big percentage of council house rents go straight into the Treasury's coffers.

When Cllr Gareth Epps, Group Leader of the Lib Dems on Reading Borough Council called on Labour Councillors to do something about this scandal in December the Leader of the Council refused.

Nationally, the cross-party Local Government Association has campaigned on this issue under the banner "My Rent Money Went to Whitehall".

Speaking at a meeting of the Council's Cabinet this week, Cllr Gareth Epps highlighted the fact that this year alone, under current Labour government policy, £5.5 million pounds from council house rents in Reading will go back to Whitehall - when it should clearly be re-invested in council housing in Reading.

What took Labour councillors so long to come around to our position? after all, the Lib Dems first raised the issue publicly last July, and the issue is not a new one.

The Labour Cabinet took the decision on Monday to increase council house rents by 4.9%. According to Council estimates this will increase rents by on average £4.23 per week and will raise an estimated £1,522,000 in additional revenue.

This follows last year when Labour set the rent increase about 1% below the limit rent. Could this be because last year was a local election year?

As someone has commented in Today's Evening Post, this rent increase is going to hit tenants even harder this year given the current economic climate.

It is a scandal that tenants will be expected to pay more rent but that millions of this cash will not be reinvested in council housing in Reading.

Labour Lead Member for Housing, Cllr John Ennis, has tabled a motion to Council next Tuesday on Council housing (and negative subsidy) which we will study with interest.

Tenants need real action now to stop any more of their money going into the government's coffers, not warm words from Labour Councillors in charge of Reading Borough Council for years, who could have lobbied the government to change this policy on tenants' behalf years ago, but haven't.

On a positive note, I was very pleased to see buried within the report on the Housing Revenue Account Financial Plan 2009/10, ( excuse the technical language but basically the Council's housing spending plans for the next year) which went to Cabinet on Monday, money set aside to help build "decent neighbourhoods", a key priority for the Lib Dems in Reading:

"In response to comments raised by tenants, RFTRA, councillors and others the budget for 2009/10 includes a £370k provision for environment improvements, to enhance the general appearance of housing estates, so that as well as having a decent home, further investment is made in to ensuring tenants live in a “decent neighbourhood.”

I have said in speeches to Council and on this blog  countless times that there is no point only investing in"Decent Homes" (Labour jargon for a home with basic amenities, thermal comfort etc.) unless investment and support is provided to local communities to ensure the neighbourhoods they live in are decent too.

What's the point of having a new kitchen if you don't feel safe when you leave your house or flat?

And it's not just about money. This means a new approach to tackling anti-social behaviour which engages the local community, and involving local peoople in improving the look and feel of the environment on our estates. These are and will continue to be key aims of the Lib Dem campaign for real change for Reading.

Fly-tipping campaign continues

Our campaign to get the Council to take action against a landlord to stop known fly-tipping in Eldon Terrace hit the headlines today.

Dumping of waste is a major problem in the ward and something Glenn Goodall and I have been leading on at a Council level, resulting in the recent Lib Dem motion to Council last year and proposals for more effective environmental enforcement endorsed by the cross-party Environment Scrutiny Panel in December.

Let's hope this latest piece of negative press coverage spurs all concerned into action.

We will continue drawing this issue to the media's attention until the Council starts to take the issue of fly-tipping seriously and uses its enforcement powers when other methods fail.

Kings Tavern complaints

Glenn and I have been picking up complaints from local residents about more noise and other nuisance connected with the Kings Tavern on Kings Road. This follows a lot of problems last year.

Following our discussions, RBC licensing officers had a meeting with the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and the area manager for the brewery this week to discuss noise issues.  They were left in no doubt by officers that unless noise nuisance stops immediately they could face prosecution.

To repeat the message I gave people last year, residents are in the driving seat here in terms of being able to call for a licence review so it is vital that anyone in the local area who is disturbed reports it to the following agencies:

• Reading Borough Council Licensing section 0118 939 0678

• Reading Borough Council Environmental Health (Noise) team: 0118 939 0937 (daytimes) 0118 939 0900 out of hours.
• Police: 0845 8 505 505 (24hr asb hotline) or 999.

NB When calling the Police please request a URN (Unique Reference Number) to ensure you have a record of your call which you can quote in correspondence etc.