Redlands Liberal Democrats

Budget

There has been a great deal of discussion this week over the setting of the Council's Budget for 2009/10, with two very long meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday night.

The discussions are taking place in the context of a very tight settlement from the Government this year, and a low pre-election Council tax rise last year (which happened in the last year Labour had full control of the Council, and was essentially under-funded). In other words, the cupboard is bare.

The Budget has to be approved by a majority on the Council. The balance on the Council is:
Labour group 19, Conservative group 18, Liberal Democrat group 8, Independent 1, which means for a Budget to pass, either:
- two of the three groups on the Council need to agree (in which case, the remaining group can't change the outcome however it votes)
- one of the three groups has to abstain (in which case the largest of the two voting parties wins)

I'm not a lawyer, nevertheless it is clear the Council has a legal responsibility to pass a Budget, and to be lawful, this Budget has to comply with fiscal rules which say that if you want to spend money, you have to say where it will come from.

Now, while there are points of disagreement about where savings need to be made and how these might be used, it is clear that both the Lib Dems and Labour put forward lawful budgets. Meanwhile, although the Conservatives stated their aspirations on the Council tax, they did not move an alternative budget, nor did they say where the money would come from. After failing to put forward a lawful alternative, they then voted against both of the lawful alternatives put forward.

Essentially, it is Conservative behaviour that has so far made setting a lawful Budget impossible.

The Conservatives need to choose between backing our budget - which cuts Labour waste and spin to give a lower Council tax and cleaner, safer streets - or they can back Labour. Or they need to put forward their own properly costed budget.

Failing that, they should meet their responsibilities as Councillors by getting out of the way, and allowing the Council to meet its obligations under the law.

WBC PAC set to make a disappointing decision on AWE Burghfield

At the Reading Borough Council (RBC) Planning Application Meeting (PAC) to be held on the 4 March 2009, Item 21 will be an update on the AWE Burghfield application. On the same day West Berks. Council (WBC) will be holding their PAC meeting in Newbury, to discuss the same application.

An observations letter has now been sent to WBC, calling for a holding objection and the escalation to a higher authority I had been requesting, and the response from West Berkshire Council was:

Thank you for your letter, the contents of which have been noted.  Unfortunately, this Local Planning Authority cannot agree to your Council's request to defer this application and you will be aware of the deadlines for determination of major planning applications as set by Central Government.  It is considered that your Council has been given the statutory time period in which to comment and Reading Borough Council's holding objection to the application will be reported to our Planning Committee.

Reading Liberal Democrat Group are not especially happy with this response or the lack of involvement WBC has allowed RBC in the process. This site is close to Reading and its activities will clearly affect us, one way or another.

In the WBC committee papers it states of RBC officers that:

Interim conclusions from Officers that they are unlikely to have planning objections to the planning application it terms of its health and safety impacts on Reading but a holding objection pending confirmation that adequate measures and mitigation will be put in place to limit disruption.

The final recommendations in the report states:

That the Head of Planning and Trading Standards be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

At this point the rubber stamp slams down and any chance of a review dissolves around us.
It is my view that this application needed to be escalated to a higher authority, such as GoSE, to ensure the safety of all the populations in proximity to the facility. Despite my best efforts, clearly this decision is now out of our hands, which I find highly disappointing.

I am deeply impressed by the 1000 odd members of the public, and of various groups, who wrote in to object to this application. I have for my part, attempted to use my position as a opposition Lib Dem councillor on RBC to echo these views and objections. I strongly felt that at the very least there needed to be a proper review of this application so as the interests of the Reading populous were not ignored. Obviously there was only so far I could go, being in opposition, but I feel I at least tried to make a stand from the inside. 

A small victory for openness and transparency

It appears I rattled a few cages amongst the ruling Labour Group earlier this week when I proposed a motion on how grant aid is allocated by Reading Borough Council (which was discussed on Tuesday evening).

In case you were not aware, the amount of money handed over by Reading Borough Council to voluntary sector and community groups this year currently stands at over £2.5m.

And yet, If you asked me to come up with two words to describe the current process the Council goes through to allocate this substantial some of money the words 'open' and 'transparent' would not spring to mind.

Don't get me wrong, my Lib Dem colleagues and I firmly believe in the value of the voluntary sector in Reading and the need for the Council to continue to support it. This ongoing commitment was clearly spelt out in my motion to Council.

However, where tax payer's money is concerned, in our view it is vital for public confidence that any decisions are made openly and subject to regular scrutiny.

As a backbencher, sorry, 'frontline' councillor, I was only dimly aware of the process by which Council funding for voluntary and community groups is agreed each year so I decided to make a few enquiries.

The current system is as follows according to officer briefings I received...

• Applications forms for grants arrive at RBC in October, and officers check them to ensure that we have all the documentation before sending them out to Grant Liaison Officers [GLOs].
• The GLOs look at the content of the application and make a recommendation to the Lead Councillor.
• Briefings for Lead Councillors are held in November.

• Officers also write to the applicants  with the officer recommendation followings these briefings, giving them a chance to ask for a review of the application in case there is any new information we should be aware of; a change in circumstances; or if they feel that they have not been fairly treated.

• Lead Councillors then decide whether or not the application should be supported at Cabinet and it is Cabinet that makes the decision about whether or not to support an individual grant.

Under the current regime, the involvement of members from other political parties is limited to group briefings. These briefings are offered fairly late in the process (in December), shortly before the matter goes to Cabinet.

The aim of these briefings apparently is to give other political groups ‘the chance to air any concerns.'

The Review Panel' referred to above consists of the Lead Councillor for Communities and Regeneration (currently Cllr Tickner) and a senior policy officer at RBC.

This officer is not involved in the grants process up until this point. Cllr Tickner has the overall responsibility for grants, while officers provide advice and background information.

The Panel does not meet in public and minutes (if they exist at all) are not available to councillors or the public.

The report which goes to Cabinet in January each year summarises the application and the outcome of the Panel's discussions, so I was told. This report acts as the record of the (Review Panel) meeting.

You can read the most recent report here which was rubber stamped on 19 January. It contains an appendix detailing all the groups which benefited from Council cash and details of unsuccessful applications.

What my Group and I are not comfortable with is the lack of scrutiny and involvement of non-executive councillors in the grant aid application process.

Surely the decision to allocate grant aid funding should be above narrow Party interest and  besomething that all members should be involved in as a Council?  

The way the current system is set up the fact that one councillor both recommends and reviews grant application applications  mitigates against a transparent approach and leaves it potentially open to politicians supporting pet projects or favouring/ignoring particular groups.

As I said in my speech on Tuesday evening, the process of allocating substantial amounts of public money, should it in an away appear to lack openness, has the potential to damage politics and politicians. As guardians of the public purse in Reading we must all do our best to avoid such impressions.

When I discussed this issue with Conservative members ahead of Tuesday's meeting I detected similar concern about the lack of transparency in the current process, and support for reform which we had proposed. 

Unsurprisingly,the response from Labour councillors during the meeting to the motion being tabled was both defensive and arrogant: they queued up to pour scorn on my efforts. How dare a non-Labour councillor wish to investigate something so clearly within the domain of the ruling group for so many years, was the infererence I took from their shrill response. 

Without calling me in advance to discuss her concerns, Cllr Tickner put forward a poorly drafted amendment the aim of which was to attempt to limit the scope of any future CCEA Scrutiny Panel review of the grant aid process to exclude past funding decisions.

We couldn't accept this change so we abstained and the Conservatives along with Labour backed the amended motion.

As my colleague Cllr Bayes pointed out during the debate, how can future decision-making be improved if previous decisions are not looked into? We were not asking for previous decisions to be changed, but simply to be reviewed in general terms as part of a review of the process.

Anyway, to cut a long story short despite the ruling Labour Group's attempts to stop us from throwing more light on the process by which grant aid decisions are made in Reading, I am pleased to say the matter will be the subject of a future CCEA Scrutiny Panel review.

In my view this is not before time.

Why children's health must remain high on the political agenda in Reading

The events of the past few days might give the impression that politics in Reading is a non-serious pursuit.  Preparing for a joint scrutiny meeting this evening into children's health in Reading reminded me why I first got involved in political life here, and it wasn't to trade insults or listen to empty promises from politicians from other parties.

Reading is a deeply unequal place: you only have to walk around Redlands to get a snapshot of how polarised the town is.  Certainly this makes politics interesting, but, fundamentally, it is this lack of equality and fairness that drives me to get up every morning to campaign for better services and better quality of life for all our residents. I feel very lucky to be able to be able to serve my community in this way.

To start with, a few stark facts, courtesy of a recent paper on poverty in Reading prepared by officers for CCEA Panel:

• 8 out of the Super Output Areas (SOAs) in Reading are within the 20%most deprived SOAs in England in the Index of Multiple Deprivation
• 11 SOAs are in the 10% most deprived in terms of education, skills and training, of which 3 are in the most deprived.
• Over 40% of Reading households have a gross annual income of less than £15,000
• The number of children and young people aged 0-17 being supported by Reading's...'Children in Need' services, compared to the size of the local population...was higher than any other authority in the South East and is on a par with a number of inner London authorities.
• In comparison with the rest of Berkshire, Reading PCT has the highest number of children eligible for free school meals.

No politician or political party in Reading should feel complacent about the size and nature of the task we face while these shocking statistics remain as they are.

Only recently campaigners attacked the Labour government for it's failure to meet it's own targets on eradicating child poverty. In my view, this is one of the areas where the Labour government has been the most timid, and ultimately the most disappointing to many people.

As a child growing up in an inner London Borough, educated at a comprehensive school, I was acutely aware of the differences of wealth between my peers and the fact that they lived cheek by jowl in the same small part of London (but were economically miles apart) made it all the more striking and hard to accept.

Now many years later, it saddens me that my nieces and nephews are growing up in a country no more equal, where educational achievement continues to the preserve of a lucky few. For this reason, Nick Clegg's ongoing commitment to improving social mobility is something I fully support.

This evening, in my role as Chair of Housing, Health and Community Care Panel I attended a meeting involving members and officers of RBC and the primary care trust to discuss what is being done to improve children's health in Reading.

As we know, social deprivation and poor health are closely linked and Reading is no different.

Let's take teenage pregnancy. According to the Joint Area Review of services held in December 2008:

'Insufficient progress has been made over the last 12 months to reduce the number and Reading  still has highest conception rates in the South East region. The projected trend indicates that Reading will not meet the national target to halve the rate of teenage pregnancy by 2010. Performance management in implementing the partnership's strategy has been wholly inadequate. The provision of sex and relationship education is inconsistent and not meeting the needs of most young people.'

We were offered reassurance tonight by officers that the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy Group is now focused and resourced - one wonders what took them so long. Nationally, despite pledging progress the Labour government it was made clear today that it is not on course to meet the 2010 target on teenage pregnancy.

The picture on oral health is no better as a paper prepared by officers for tonight's meeting testified:

'Children in Reading aged 5 years appear to have higher years appear to have higher rates of dental decay than the national average with some of the poorest oral health in England. Based on the last survey sample 57% of Reading children have had experience of decay by the age of five.'

I asked the experts gathered at the meeting why this was and was not given a convincing reply. We were told that the PCT was conducting an oral health needs assessment, surely such a basic requirement is long overdue? A Labour councillor made a poor joke about one health campaign that some councillors could do with learning to smile more.

I couldn't see what was funny. After decades in power I think the state of children's oral health in Reading is a gross failure by Reading's Labour administration and hardly a laughing matter.  Sadly this is not the first time that particular councillor has mocked attempts to scrutinise serious issues. Perhaps this is an attempt to deflect attention away from difficult questions posed to the administration.

There is plenty of good work going on by local agencies to reduce infant mortality and childhood obesity: both at higher than average levels in Reading, but overall the current outlook remains bleak and progress towards improving health outcomes in key areas remains uncertain.

 As the respected think tank the Joseph Rowntree Foundation observed in it's recent report looking at poverty, inequality and government policy since 1997, published earlier this month, under this Labour government there has been rapid growth in overall health-care spending. with targets for reducing health inequalities but few concrete policies.

Overall health outcomes have improved, but inequality has risen on many indicators over the last decade.

Cllr Mark Ralph, Chair of the Education & Childrens Services Scrutiny Panel and I are keen to keep the focus of the Council and the PCT on health inequality in Reading, and I'm pleased to say it was agreed by all members of  both scrutiny panels this evening that we should revisit this important subject in the next 6 months to review progress.

Let it be?

I took advantage of the mild weather today and went out for one of my regular ward walkabouts, today focussing on the area around Erleigh Road and London Road.  I picked up a lot of issues on my way round and it was nice to catch up with people for a chat.

I said hello to the proud owner of the new hairdresser's on Hatherley Road: so nice to see that empty shop occupied at last after years of lying empty.

I spent the morning reading a summary of comments received during the scrutiny review into private rented housing, the  public consultation on which closed last week. I will be sitting down with members of scrutiny panels tomorrow to discuss the feedback and consider next steps.

One of the minor but nonetheless important issues that was raised by several respondents in the review was the proliferation of 'to let' signs on many roads around Reading. This is a particular problem around Wokingham Road and Erleigh Road.

The photo above shows Cardigan Road where this is a particular problem.

As one resident remarked:

“This is an area where 'To Let' or 'Let by' signs are rapidly coming to dominate the streetscape, and they are effectively permanent; they are not just in front gardens but are now appearing as permanent fixtures on the house fronts.”

My colleagues and I have been aware of this blight for some time, and back in January Kirsten Bayes made enquiries about what could be done to regulate them. Officers responded saying:

'It is an on-going problem with many estate agents constantly pushing the limits with respect to For Sale and To Let signs...If an estate agent refused to remove the sign, prosecution would be considered.  Unless there we aggravating circumstances it is very unlikely it would be in the public interest to prosecute what is seen by many to be a relatively minor matter.'

The regulations say that once installed 'the advertisement shall be removed within 14 days after the completion of a sale or the grant of a tenancy'. It is clear that this limit is being breached regularly. However, the view of officers is that prosecution would need to be considered only as an absolute last resort and we are minded to agree with them.

Officers advise that anyone with concerns about 'permanent' letting signs in their street should contact the planning enforcement team at RBC.

I wonder whether establishing some kind of informal code or policy for letting agents about good practice when it comes to letting signs might help.

I have a lot of sympathy with residents who don't like living amongst a forest of tatty signs and don't like to see neighbouring houses advertised to burglars and other potentially uninvited guests. As such we  will continue to investigate what if any positive action can be taken to improve the streetscene for local residents.

If anyone has any good ideas about how this particular issue has been tackled successfully in other parts of the country I would be very interested to hear from them.

Threat to tenants in Reading's rented properties

I've just read a worrying article on BBC News Online about a big increase in the number of tenants being evicted from their homes after landlords defaulted on the mortgages.

Shelter revealed the extent of this problem and are campaigning to get the government to act:

According to Shelter's survey, 22 per cent of respondents, around 160,000 households - admit to struggling or falling behind with their monthly mortgage payments.

Five per cent, around 37,000, expect to be repossessed in the next six months.

I'm pleased the government is now looking at what can be done to help people in this terrible situation, but why didn't ministers gave any thought to this when the buy-to-let market was booming? This is a scandal.

This issue could become a major problem in Reading, given the fact that 20% of households currently live in rented accomodation and the large number of buy-to-let landlords in the town. I have been campaigning for some time to raise the profile of these properties and tenants.

I am very worried about the impact this could have on people renting locally.

Reading Borough Council already runs a deposit guarantee scheme which aims to offer greater protection to tenants in the private rented sector. I do not know however if this scheme can help residents who are threatened with eviction when their landlord defaults on a mortgage.

Our scrutiny investigations revealed that this scheme is growing in popularity. I am concerned however that the Council has enough resources to cope with demand which undoubtedly will increase during this recession.

I am makingurgent enquiries with officers to see what the Council can do to help and will update you on their response here.

I will also make sure the issue is included in our scrutiny review into private rented housing which could not have come at a better time.

Pavement Politics: Update

Back in January, I blogged about my constituent Graham Bennett and his tireless efforts to get the Council to tackle the problem of bins on pavements and the lukewarm response he has received from Labour councillors and officers.

I'm pleased to report that the issue will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel which takes place on 3 March.

This scrutiny panel has taken a much more active role in investigating waste and recycling issues since opposition councillors took over the chair and vice-chair. And, as Glenn pointed out earlier this week, the Labour-run Cabinet is being forced to sit up and take action to improve the Streetcare service for residents as a result, which can only be a good thing.

On March 3, the Panel will be discussing the results of a recent pilot project undertaken in Katesgrove where black sacks replaced wheelie bins, following representations by my colleague Cllr Gareth Epps about the number of bins left on pavements around Alpine Street.

There are more details about the pilot in the Council's press release:

'Last August the Council's Streetcare team began a trial in Alpine and Edgehill Streets, two streets with narrow pavements and a mix of front gardens. Persistent offenders who regularly blocked pavements with their bins were sent an escalating series of letters and notices, starting with a friendly warning letter reminding them of their responsibility to clear their bins from pavements.

 
Where bins continued to be left out, a Section 46 Notice - prohibiting them from leaving their bin on the pavement - was issued, warning the householder that they risk being prosecuted. In cases where the offences still continued, a third and final warning letter was sent out.

Fixed penalty notices of £100 were only issued if the third letter was ignored and people continued to block the pavement with their bins. Trials showed more offenders complied at each of the various stages of warning, well before a fine was issued.

Since the scheme was extended boroughwide in October last year 419 residents have received the first letter and an accompanying information sheet; of these 128 have received the S46 Notice; and of these just 10 have been issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice. Of the residents who have received some form of action only 2.5% were issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice. The Council also found during the trial that the majority of people will comply with requests after receiving the first letter.'

Let's hope the Council's Streetcare department learns from this pilot and replicates this more proactive approach to enforcement in other parts of Reading suffering the same problem such as around Eldon Terrace and Addington Road in Redlands.

In praise of Paul Farmer: the end of treatment of minors in adult wards?

Earlier this week the Evening Post reported the welcome news that children with mental illnesses will shortly no longer be admitted into adult mental health wards in Prospect Park Hospital.

Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust had been widely criticised for the practice in the local media and by local campaigner Paul Farmer. Cllr Pete Ruhemann ex-Lead Member for Childrens Service also echoed concerns raised.

Last December, the Housing, Health and Community Care Scrutiny Panel which I Chair debated mental health care services in Reading. The fact this discussion took place we owe in large part to the sterling efforts of Mr Farmer (who if you don't know him has been a one-man lobby group for many years for better standards of care for people suffering from mental health problems).

in May 2008 and December that year I received countless letters from him demanding action. As a result I set up a meeting encouraging Paul to sit round the table with a number of senior officers from local health bodies. The result was a very interesting discussion, and I hope a bit of pressure for change.

At the December meeting of HHCC Panel, the issue of the 'appropriateness' of children being cared for in adult mental health wards came up, and there was a consensus amongst Members that the Trust needed to be moving far more swiftly, in conjunction with  health bodies across the region (because the problem affects the entire Berkshire West area) to ensure that the right facilities are available for young people in crisis.

The last thing I wanted after we had this debate was simply for us to 'note' the report (what would be the point?), so I drafted a motion that was passed unanimously which said the following:

"This Scrutiny Panel requests officers of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Berkshire West to respond in writing to Mr Farmer’s letter and produce an update report for a future Panel meeting (date to be agreed) on progress towards meeting the government's April 2010 target around admission of minors."

As the Post reported on Monday, as a result of changes in legislation ushered in by the new Mental Health Act, as of the end of last year, no under 16s are allowed to be cared for on adult wards at any time and under 18s are only allowed in exceptional circumstances. But from next year, admitting under 18s to adult wards will also be banned.

I have since discussed the issue with officers involved and have learned that as you would imagine there is still more work to be done to find a sustainable solution to treating young people in the appropriate setting, within Berkshire. The important thing is it is accepted that they way they were doing things just was not acceptable, in law.

Officers have also told me that they feel Scrutiny had a positive impact on moving the issue forward and that the update report we are due to receive in a few months report will help keep minds focused on getting the job done.

I am very grateful to Paul Farmer for first lobbying me about this issue, and also pleased that the Scrutiny Panel was able to add its collective voice to the local campaign to stop this deeply unsatisfactory way of looking after some of our most vulnerable young people.

Save the School of Health and Social Care!

You may have seen the article in yesterday's Evening Post about plans to close the highly-valued School of Health and Social Care, based at Reading University.

I have signed the petition against the closure - you can sign it here.

Like many students, staff and members of the local community, my Lib Dem colleagues and I feel strongly that to close this department at the current time would be both short-sighted and highly irresponsible.

This news is a further blow following recent inspections which highlighted genuine concerns about the quality of services the Labour-run Council provides for vulnerable children and the elderly in Reading.

It is no secret that at the moment we face a great shortage of highly skilled social and healthcare workers in the Reading area.

The Chief Executive of Reading Borough Council Council admitted recently that the Council is having real difficulty recruiting social workers to work for RBC and as such it has been flagged as a major concern on the Council's corporate 'risk register.'

The problem goes wider than Reading, however. Nationally we are told that around 'two in three councils are struggling' to recruit and retain social workers.

My Lib Dem colleagues and I have tabled a motion to the next full Council meeting on 24 February calling on Reading University to reconsider these proposals and to work with Reading Borough Council at finding an alternative solution.

We hope very much that our motion will receive cross-party support.

UPDATE: Support the campaign and join the Facebook group.

Lib Dems welcome support for Scrutiny findings on enforcement

Lib Dems on Reading Borough Council have cautiously welcomed  the decision by the Labour Cabinet to give further consideration to proposals put forward by the cross-party Environment Scrutiny Review in December for tougher enforcement of environmental crimes in the town.

The decision was taken at a meeting of the Labour Executive on 16 February.

At a meeting of the Labour administration's ruling Executive Labour politicians agreed to:

• Review resources available for to the Council to carry out enforcement

• Establish a cross-service 'Environmental Enforcement Group' to co-ordinate and prioritise environmental enforcement action.

• Widen the use of Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

 

Cllr Ricky Duveen, Chair of the Environment Scrutiny Panel said:

"Members of the Environment Scrutiny Panel agreed a package of measures that, if adopted, would result in a step change in Reading Borough Council's enforcement activity against those individuals who desecrate our local environment"

"The hope of opposition parties now is that the Labour Cabinet has the courage to take the bold steps put forward by the Scrutiny Panel."

Environment spokesperson, Cllr Glenn Goodall added:

"The Labour run Council has a range of powers it can use against those committing environmental crimes in Reading which damage our local environment.

"The Lib Dems have campaigned for many years to get the Council to use these powers more widely when people don't play by the rules."

Cllr Gareth Epps, Parliamentary Campaigner for Reading East, said:

"The review of the Council's approach to dealing with these problems endorsed by Scrutiny is vital to ensure that appropriate resources are deployed by the Council to enable enforcement action to be taken."

"It's time for the Labour-run Council to stop talking tough and actually prosecute those who wreck our valuable local environment: existing powers the Council has means this is possible."