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.
Comments