Tuesday 11th November 6.30pm

Localis Think Tank
The subject for discussion at this event was “How can local authorities tackle the issues associated with ‘at risk’ families in deprived areas“.
There was a panel of speakers from a number of organizations including Westminster Council, My Generation, The Centre for Social Justice, Action for Children and Localis.Westminster Council was launching a new initiative which provided a targeted and holistic approach to dealing with ‘at risk’ families. It involved intensive work with especially problematic families drawing on all council departments to help solve the issues. The involvement could last for years rather than months. The aim appeared to be to prevent the downward spiral of anti-social and dysfunctional behaviour forming the pattern for future generations. The lack of any family member being in employment for generations was cited as an example of this self-perpetuating problem.

The programme involved investing a large sum of money per family, but this was seen as a good preventative measure which could save much greater amounts in future as the family was helped away from dependence on benefits and away from criminal activities which are also a drain on public resources.

There was an interesting question and answer session following on from the presentations by the panel members. The strongest message for me was from the My Generation speaker who highlighted that we must stop our approach to these families as a problem to be solved. We must put aside judgemental attitudes and work as partners with the family members.

It was also pointed out that a ‘professional attitude’ can be seen as patronizing and will instantly alienate anyone who is trying to intervene from the people they are attempting to help.

I asked a question about the effect of social housing in perpetuating the problems. My point was that the practice of placing all the ‘problem’ families together in one place both drags down an area and also has the effect of making anti-social & dysfunctional behaviour appear the norm. It is a fact that peer pressure is the biggest influence on the way people act in society.
The responses to my query varied. Some panelists felt that poorly designed social housing encouraged crime. Others felt that the social housing system was too bureaucratic and encouraged dependency.
Again it was the My Generation panelist who appreciated the gist of my point and stated his opinion that we should not build these great estates for social housing but instead scatter social housing throughout neighbourhoods, thereby integrating families into our society.

Tuesday 11th November 10.45am

Armistice Day Service

I attended this service held in the Millennium Gardens in the centre of Sutton. Local schoolchildren had been invited to lead the singing and a Sutton Council officer had kindly volunteered to sound the last post on his trumpet. The Mayor was joined by other councillors and council officers and a number of members of the public stopped to listen to the service. The town centre fell quiet for the two minute silence as shoppers stopped what they were doing to remember the fallen.

Sunday 9th November 10.30am

Remembrance Sunday Service

I attended the Remembrance Service at the Carshalton War Memorial. There was a large turnout of councillors, council officers and members of the public. After the laying of wreaths and some prayers the guns were fired and all were silent as we paid our respects to those who had given their lives for our freedom.

Thursday 6th November 7.30pm

Health & Well Being Scrutiny Committee

This was a very health focused meeting with agenda items on GP provision, and updates on proposed changes to improve the PCT’s commissioning of services.

 

Under GP Provision the committee wanted to look at whether there were enough GPs in the borough to meet demand and whether there was equality of access to GP surgeries in all areas of the borough. There has been particular concern expressed about Worcester Park and whether there was sufficient GP capacity to meet the growing population of the area as a result of the expansion of The Hamptons Estate.

 

The PCT representatives at the meeting explained that Sutton’s GP to patient ratio was a little better than the national average, and it was confirmed that there was still spare capacity in local GP practices to take on new patients. From the information provided the committee was unable to determine whether there were any pockets where there was inadequate coverage.

 

The committee also learnt that there was little concern amongst borough GPs about the plans locally regarding polyclinics as the PCT approach was to move to a hub and spoke model and would not be forcing GP practices to merge into larger practices.

 

With the idea in mind that GP capacity was one thing, quality of GP provision was also an important factor, I asked about how GPs’ performance is monitored. It emerged that there are formal protocols in place to ensure that GPs are regularly appraised & offered relevant training to support their fitness to practice. It did appear to me that this process invested a great deal of power in just a few senior medical practitioners, however I was reassured that procedures were undertaken to avoid any compromise of independence.

 

Under Strengthening Commissioning the PCT reps talked about how they were hoping to improve service provision to meet new standards by looking to separate the PCT’s roles of commissioning services and those providing services. There were hopes to aggregate commissioning decision-making by working with other local PCTs and thereby strengthening the effectiveness of the commissioning group.

 

Whilst recognising the benefits of a larger commissioning body, I had concerns about retaining local accountability for the decisions. It was explained that there were plans for a joint committee to be set up with Local Authority representatives on the board. However the PCT would remain accountable to local authorities in the same way as the present.