Wizard man switching on Sutton Christmas lights

Thanks to an online petition started by Billie-Jo Maynard and signed by over 2600 people, colourful local character and self-styled pagan priest Conrad Pugsley was invited to participate in the switching on the Christmas lights celebrations in Sutton, alongside SpongeBob SquarePants and Peppa Pig.

 

As Billie-Jo and his fellow signatories are so professedly fond of our resident wizard I trust someone will be extending him an invitation to Christmas Lunch!

Tuesday 28th October 7.30pm

Scrutiny Overview Committee

The main topic of interest at this meeting was the review of the Council’s Treasury arrangements in the light of the £5.5 million currently frozen in Heritable Bank plc – a UK subsidiary of the Icelandic bank Landsbanki.

 

A review of the council’s treasury arrangements had been carried out by Paul Rigg, an independent consultant. This review had already been scrutinised by the Tory-chaired Audit Committee and we had received a copy of the minutes of that meeting. Sue Higgins, Strategic Director of Resources; Cllr. John Drage, Executive Councillor for Resources, and Audit Committee chair Cllr.Terry Faulds attended the meeting to take questions.

 

The summary conclusions of the independent review were as follows:

i)                    The Council’s operating framework is comparable with best practice in the sector.

ii)                  The deposits made with Heritable Bank plc in August and September were made entirely in accordance with that framework as approved by Council.

iii)                The recent banking crisis is unprecedented in its scale and speed and all sectors and levels of expertise have been caught out. However there are always lessons to learn for those who suffer from such events.

iv)                Heritable Bank plc is a UK registered and regulated bank, and there is some hope that its short term credit rating on which the Council relied will prove about right and that UK Government intervention will also prove to have been a beneficial factor.

v)                  The Council’s Treasury Management Advisors have complied with their contract and the advice received on the Heritable investments was drawn from the credit rating agencies data in the usual way. There are clearly questions to be followed up nationally about the role of these agencies, and whether a system designed for normal times could ever cope with what transpired over the past few weeks.

vi)                The Council’s immediate response has been perfectly reasonable, but the basis for a further review with your advisors is suggested.

  

These conclusions were endorsed by the Audit Committee and recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

 

To me this begged the question of why it had been requested that the Scrutiny Overview Committee also look at the review. The answer to this was soon made clear when Tory Councillor John Kennedy pronounced that whilst the review and Audit Committee had exonerated the treasury management staff, there was still the issue of political accountability to be considered. Obviously as the Tory big wigs all sit on the Scrutiny Overview Committee they couldn’t miss their opportunity to milk the frozen asset situation and have a pop at another executive member.

 

Cllr Kennedy then stated that he had ten questions to ask, but graciously accepted that he might not have time to ask them all. I don’t suppose it ever occurs to him that other committee members might have some questions to ask of equal importance.  Cllr Kennedy was obviously determined to dominate the meeting managing a straight run of eight questions and coming back with a good few more later.

 

Cllr. Kennedy’s first thrust was around the timing of the deposit and the ‘A’ credit rating from Sector that the treasury management team relied on when the September 30^th deposit was made. It was revealed that any change in credit rating was updated immediately so there was confidence that the rating relied upon was the most recent and up to date.

 

Cllr. Kennedy’s next line of attack was on Cllr. Drage regarding the forseeability of the situation and the Executive Member’s involvement in overseeing the treasury deposits. Cllr Drage explained that a strategic policy had been set, which was risk averse and in accordance with best practice, which the treasury management department had followed correctly. It was not the role of an executive member to micro manage their areas of responsibility. Cllr Kennedy appeared to believe that Cllr. Drage should have stepped in and overruled the policy. Cllr Drage was frank that with hindsight he might have questioned the deposits if he had been more closely involved. However this led me to ask what if a member had interfered but made the wrong decision – surely this would have had more severe political consequences? I am sure that the Conservatives would have been all over him like a plague of locusts had it been that Cllr Drage made a call that was contrary to strategic policy and had then put the council in a difficult position. This is why micro management of council affairs by members is not a good thing. Policies and strategies have to be agreed and scrutinised and then followed. We can’t have councillors overturning agreed policies on a personal whim, not least for the liability that would place on the member involved. It concerned me that Cllr. Kennedy appeared to believe that this was the way the Council should be run.

 

The independent consultant had expressed concerns about the long-term viability of the emergency measures undertaken with regard to treasury deposits. Sue Higgins explained that as a risk averse measure deposits were only being made in UK & Irish banks. In response to my question Ms Higgins agreed that this limited the spread of the investment portfolio considerably and the situation was being closely monitored.

 

My colleague Cllr Bailey asked about the income generated by treasury deposits and its likely impact on the council. Ms Higgins replied that total deposits earned approximately £2.6m per annum and contributed significantly to the council’s revenue resources.

 

This item ended with Cllr. Faulds commending the council for acting quickly in obtaining a review to reassure residents and providing a way forward on treasury management.

 

Monday 27th October 7pm

Full Council

There were four motions to be debated at this meeting of the full council.

The first to be debated was the motion of no confidence in the Executive Member for Children, Young People and Learning Services brought by Independent Councillor David Theobald. Everyone was aware that Cllr. Theobald had brought this motion because of his concerns about the revised policy on Special Educational Needs (SEN) Transport currently out for consultation. However rather than following the normal course of lobbying and debate through the system Cllr. Theobald had used the Conservatives example (and wording) and filed a motion of no confidence in the Executive Member overseeing the service. This meant that the debate was actually about Cllr. Tony Brett-Young and not SEN transport. In a gentlemen’s’ agreement, in recognition of the fact that the policy was still at the consultation stage and not yet implemented, the Conservatives agreed that there would be no debate on the matter, just a few words explaining the situation. It is a shame that the gentlemanly conduct did not extend as far as Cllr. Scully’s blog where he has posted a video in which he calls Cllr. Sue Stears a “bulldog” for speaking on the motion in defence of Cllr. Tony Brett-Young.

 

Cllr. Theobald made an articulate and moving speech about the potential impact of the policy on autistic children and their parents. His concerns echoed those of many of the parent-carers I have spoken to on the transport policy, and I too have been drawing attention to these issues, but through more traditional channels, in my role as Carers Champion.

 

The policy that is now to be put to the Scrutiny Overview Committee on Tuesday 25^th November has been revised to account for the results of the consultation so I hope that Cllr. Theobald will feel that his efforts, whilst controversial, have not been in vain.

 

The next item on the agenda was the Motion from the leader of the Council Sean Brennan on the Frozen Financial Deposits in UK subsidiaries of Icelandic Banks.

 

Cllr Drage spoke outlining the detailed background to the situation and the work that was being done both to ensure repayment of the funds and investigation of the circumstances that led to the freezing of the £5.5million.

 

At the time of the meeting the Audit Committee, chaired by Conservative Councillor Terry Faulds, had received a report from an independent consultant on the Council’s conduct in this matter. Cllr Faulds announced that the report exonerated the council from all blame as it had properly followed procedures and external financial advice. The council was also commended for the speed at which it made the situation known to the electorate and commissioned an inquiry – it being the first council affected by the Icelandic freeze to do so. Cllr. Faulds reported that his audit committee unanimously supported the findings of the report.

 

Next to be debated was the Conservative motion requesting the Council ‘opt in’ to the Sustainable Communities Act.

 

This Act seeks to devolve more power to local authorities and the residents they serve. The debate consisted of the Conservatives saying that this was a good thing and us as Liberal Democrats agreeing but pointing out that we were already ahead of the game and have been making efforts to put the aims of the Act into practice, most notably in the form of our Local Committees. There was some amusement as Cllr. Dave Callaghan pointed out that this has been official Liberal Democrat policy for years and he welcomed the Tories’ new found conversion to the democratic principle.

 

The Conservative deputy leader Cllr. Tony Shields was not so amused, indeed he was almost frothing at the mouth with outrage that Cllr. Callaghan, the deputy mayor, had the audacity to speak on the motion. There was a lot of blustering that the deputy mayor should not be allowed to speak whilst wearing the chains of office etc. and attempts to drown Cllr. Callaghan out with shouting. I thought that Cllr Shields might explode with apoplexy when Cllr. Callaghan stood up a second time to speak on a later motion. I worry for that man’s blood pressure! Anyway I later learnt from some of my longer serving colleagues that when the Conservatives were in the majority apparently they used to make great advantage of their deputy mayor speaking imperiously from the podium. It seems that it is one rule for them and another rule for us.

 

Finally we had the last motion which was on Communications, also moved by the Conservatives. The motion emphasised the importance of communicating with residents and conducting meaningful consultations on major policy changes. This was another opportunity for the Liberal Democrat members to point out that this has been our policy for a very long time; the principle of consultation is ingrained in our procedures. This was also my opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in the Tories’ motion and their criticisms of us. I was able to cite the example of the no smoking in children’s playgrounds policy recently agreed at the Beddington & Wallington Local Committee. Despite broad consultation on the issue, and a very strong response from the public in support of the scheme, the Conservative members of the committee all voted against the wishes of the local residents. What is the point of having consultation only to dismiss the results because, as Cllr. Scully had argued: not everyone responded to the consultation? I highlighted the fact that the people who responded would be those parents with children who use the park and so are most affected. But Cllr Scully renders their views irrelevant because there failed to be a 100% response to the consultation. Following that logic nothing would ever be able to be implemented by the council as it is widely acknowledged that a 26% return rate is considered a high consultation response.

 

I was then able to follow with another example that their own Conservative members did not appear willing to act in accordance with Cllr. Scully’s motion as the Beddington South ward councillors are refusing to allow the public to be consulted at all on a proposed cycle lane. (I have commented on this in an earlier blog posting.)

 

My conclusion was that the Conservatives are good at saying the right thing, but fail to apply their lofty words to their own actions.

Tuesday 21st October 6.30pm

 

Sutton Sports Awards 2008 & London Youth Games Awards

I was very pleased to be able to attend this event celebrating the sporting achievements of our young people in the last year. The Secombe Theatre was packed with friends and family of those nominated for awards showing their support.

  

First the competitors in the London Youth Games were called upon to receive their medals from the Mayor of Sutton, Councillor Brendon Hudson. Sutton had done particularly well this year coming 4^th overall.

 

 

 

Next the nominations and winners of the Sutton Sports Awards were announced. The awards were presented by the Mayor, on behalf of the Sutton Sports Council, who organise the awards.

 

I was very pleased to see Bryony Smith from Bandon Hill Primary School winning the Young Sports Person of the Year both for her sporting accomplishments and voluntary work helping other students to participate in sports

.

 

Pictures courtesy of Sutton Sports Council http://www.suttonsportscouncil.co.uk/

Thursday 9th October 12pm

Black History Month Launch

The Sutton Black History Month Launch has acquired a reputation with Sutton Council staff as the event to find excellent food, so the Secombe Theatre was soon packed with hungry officers lured by the smell of exotic food and lively music. This year there were also displays of cultural clothing and artefacts supplied by volunteers representing their various countries of origin.

 

The celebration of influential black historical figures took the form of a photo montage which spread around the room. As well as local residents who had made their mark the homage included a portrait of Barack Obama, whose recent elevation to President Elect is a fitting culmination of this illustrious roll call.

 

There were a number of speakers including our own Sean Brennan, and Simon Latham. Guest speaker was Patricia Marsh who talked about the significance of Black History Month.

Wednesday 8th October 12.30pm

Citizens Advice Bureau AGM

I attended the Citizens Advice Bureau AGM to show my support for their work. I am aware how helpful they have been to carers by providing a regular benefit advice slot at the Carers Centre once a week. They also had an interesting speaker talking about how to engage with young people.

 

The CAB have been running a Young Volunteers programme where young people spend time helping at the centre & receive a certificate at the end of their work experience. The awards were made at the AGM. It was explained how well service users had responded to the young volunteers and it was obvious that they had enjoyed and benefited from their time at the centre.

 

Wednesday 8th October 10am

Meeting to Discuss Redford Avenue Cycle Scheme

I had been called in as chair of the Beddington & Wallington Local Committee to mediate in a stalemate between council officers needing to go to consultation on a proposed cycle lane and the Beddington South Ward Councillors who were refusing to allow the scheme to go ahead. 

 

Back in May the Beddington and Wallington Local Committee had approved a number of transport schemes for which Transport for London (TfL) had agreed funding, including this one for Redford Avenue, subject to ward councillors’ agreement of the final design and formal consultation. However the Conservative ward councillors were objecting to the scheme on the basis of cost and refusing to allow it to go to consultation.

 

To address the councillors’ concerns officers explained that the scheme, in order to be granted approval & funding by TfL, had to meet the high standards required by TfL guidance. There were also additional factors which increased the cost of the scheme relating to the existing build-outs at the entrance to the road which meant that for safety purposes the cycle lane had to cut through the build-outs, meaning additional work. However in terms of cost the scheme was still comparable to other schemes of its like in London.

 

I suggested that to address the concerns about cost we could look at ways to amend the scheme to see if we could bring the costs down to a level they would be more comfortable with. Officers made some suggestions but the ward councillors refused to budge.

 

It turns out that the Conservative ward councillors had already sought to have a value for money audit of the scheme, something which strikes me as contradictory when applied to a scheme as small as this – the costs of the audit will only add to the overall spend and outweigh any potential savings.

 

One of the councillors’ concerns was more about the safety of the scheme, as it allowed cyclists to ride contra to the traffic flow in this one way street. I felt that this was a valid concern. Officers were able to advise that putting cycle lanes in one way streets in this way was an initiative suggested by Transport for London and had received approval from cycling organisations. The fears over safety had been noted, but in schemes across London that had already been implemented no problems had occurred.

Also at the meeting was a representative from a local cycling association and he expressed the association’s support for the proposed cycle route. 

 

The main concern of the officers was that to reject the funding from Transport for London could have serious consequences. We would be seen as an authority opposed to cycling improvements and we could have difficulty obtaining future funding from TfL. One of the Tory councillors suggested that the schemes should be worked up in more detail before a bid for funding was submitted so that the Local Committee could be more informed about its decision, however officers pointed out that as only half of submitted bids received funding, it would be a waste of officer’s time preparing anything other than outline schemes. Because of the serious implications of rejecting the funding from TfL, and because the remit for ward councillors was only to agree the design, it was pointed out that the matter would need to come back to the Local Committee for decision if agreement could not be reached.

 

As it transpired that the concerns expressed by the councillors were theirs alone and they had not consulted with residents I suggested that we let it go to formal consultation so that residents could inform the decision. The ward councillors said that they might consider this if the cost of the scheme was included in the consultation document, to which I had no objection.

 

I suggested that the ward councillors go away to discuss their options and make a decision and the meeting ended there.

 

I was later informed by the Conservative councillors that they wanted the validity of the committee’s decision to be considered by the legal department before making a decision and that is still the current state of play.

 To find out more about cycle lanes in one way streets visit:  www.ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/oneway.html or http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/cyclefacilities/contraflowcycling

 

 

 

Tuesday 7th October 7.30pm

Beddington & Wallington Local Committee Meeting

We had some interesting items to get our teeth into at this meeting. First up was an update on the Better Healthcare Closer to Home (BHCH) programme and how it might impact us locally, presented by Stephen Waring the programme director. As the Shotfield Health Centre is an integral part of the programme Beddington & Wallington residents are set to benefit directly. There was an insightful question from a member of the public about the Carshalton War Memorial hospital which sparked a lively debate. Having received previous reassurances that the site would continue to be used for health purposes as an intermediate care centre it became apparent that under BHCH it would no longer be required for this purpose. Stephen Waring advised that the aim was to provide more intermediate care in peoples’ homes – around 80%, with just one NHS intermediate care facility therefore needed for Sutton & Merton, to be provided at the Wilson hospital in Merton. There were opinions expressed that the site should continue to be used for health provision, as that was the purpose of the building. Others accepted that the building may not be fit for purpose but as a war memorial sensitivity needed to be given to the future of the site. I thought that this was a useful discussion as the NHS representatives could not fail to appreciate the strength of feeling of residents about the Carshalton hospital.

 

Next up was an item about the traffic and road safety problems at Butter Hill. Wallington North ward councillors have been seeking action on the traffic problems in this area for some time and Cllr. Hartfield requested it as an agenda item to see if any progress had been made towards finding a solution. Faran Forghani the Acting Traffic and Highway Works manager advised us of two trial schemes that he wanted to put in place to see which worked best. One involved a priority scheme, the other required traffic lights and would be more expensive to implement permanently. There was heated discussion amongst residents & members with some favouring one scheme over the other, but no agreement on which. It was agreed by the committee that trialling the two schemes was the best way forward and we would receive the results of the trial at a future meeting.

 

This was followed by a presentation of the results of the consultation on the trial smoking ban in Beddington Park children’s playground. The results were strongly in favour of making the trial permanent and the committee needed to make decisions on rolling out the policy to other playgrounds in the area. There was some debate about the signage. The Parks Department had been aspiring to erect signs in playgrounds across the borough detailing useful local information & bylaws but at £400 a time did not have the budget to do so. Adding a request not to smoke in the playground would not increase the cost of the signs but gave the committee the opportunity to fund the signs out of its Public Realm budget whilst also implementing the policy. One of the Tory councillors was concerned that the sign already erected in Beddington Park did not contain the full text of the bylaws he thought the committee had agreed to. Mark Dalzell the Head of the Parks Department pointed out that the sign would need to be at least double the size to contain the full text of the bylaws and it had been the intention to summarise the bylaws not detail the full legal text. The same councillor next stated that if the trial was to be made permanent then the sign should state that smoking was banned in the playground, rather than the current wording which was a request not to smoke. I found this oddly contradictory when he then stated that he didn’t agree with the policy anyway. The committee reached agreement that as the policy was being introduced voluntarily by the committee and was not a legally enforceable ‘ban’ the wording was satisfactory and should be repeated on new signs, but given greater prominence than the current sign in Beddington Park. It was agreed to fund signage carrying the no smoking request for all the children’s playgrounds in Beddington & Wallington, but not to make recommendations to other Local Committees. The point was made that there would be opportunity to read the minutes of our meeting & members or residents could bring the matter up with their own local committee if they so wished.

 

We had further public realm funding decisions to make regarding match funding the Eco-Local Bicycle Scheme, which received committee approval, and also adding to the playground improvements for St Mary’s Field playground. New children’s play equipment is to be installed thanks to funding from Viridor waste management and match funded from our public realm budget. The friends of the park were now requesting funding for tables, seating & litter bins to complete the area and this was agreed by the committee.

 

Finally we came to the issue of the air raid shelters in Woodcote Green & Mellows Park. The committee had received a suggestion that these structures be demolished to allow landscaping of the areas. We had received a report from the Heritage Manager, John Phillips, stating that the shelters were the last remaining shelters of their kind in the borough and were worth preserving for their historical significance. Some of the committee’s special advisors felt that the shelters were eyesores, and whilst not advocating demolition, they were not worth spending money on. However members of the public in the audience felt very differently and said that it was an insult to have even considered getting rid of the shelters which had saved many lives during the Second World War. There were some advocates from the committee to preserve them to serve as reminders to our children. The committee decided to commit a small amount of funding to carry out basic maintenance work to the shelters & erect signs explaining their significance. The Heritage Manager was also tasked with approaching local schools to see if there would be any interest in making use of the shelters as teaching resources bearing in mind that World War II was a curriculum topic at both primary & secondary schools.

Tuesday 7th October 12 noon

Carers Forum AGM

As you can tell by the dates I am doing a bit of catch up here. I spent so much of October on council work that I have had little time to write it all up.

 

I attended the Carers Forum AGM and heard the report backs on the work of the Forum over the past year.  Current committee members were re elected to posts but a plea went out for new members & volunteers to take on committee roles. In particular the Chair, Joan Parker, indicated that she would not be able to continue in her role indefinitely.

The remainder of the meeting looked at the issues faced by carers of individuals with mental health problems.

Man’s inhumanity to (wo)man

Picture this: fifty grown men throwing rocks at a helpless 13 year old girl until she is dead.

  

This is a perfectly legitimate punishment sanctioned by law in Somalia, reported recently.

 

The girl said she was raped by three men. She was stoned on the charge of adultery.

 

In a country with strict Sharia Law can you imagine a thirteen year old girl with the wherewithal or the opportunity to seduce a man into committing adultery?

 

It is awful enough to contemplate the suffering of the girl having been sexually abused in this way, but to have that suffering turned into her crime is a gross injustice.

 

Across the world there are still societies where women are not only considered less important than men, but are subjugated, oppressed and abused at the hands of men.

 

Here in the western world how far have we really come in accepting that being human is the true levelling factor? Have we eliminated discrimination on the grounds of gender? What about race or sexual orientation?

 

Where there is inequality there is oppression. Where humans are not afforded equal rights there is injustice.

 

Just how many steps are there between thinking that a man’s opinion is more important than a woman’s (still common here in the UK), to a society dominated by men; who will stone a woman to death for adultery?

 

Incidentally I read of a study recently that looked into the most painful ways to die. Death by stoning came out top.

 

To read the full news story see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7708169.stm