MP’s Expenses

At the House of Commons dinner I was chatting to our Sutton & Cheam MP Paul Burstow about the current debate around MP’s Expenses. I was very pleased to learn that although both he and Tom Brake, MP for Carshalton & Wallington, would qualify for the second homes allowance as MPs representing outer London boroughs they had conscientiously decided not to claim it. Their reasoning was that no one else living in these areas would feel that commuting to central London was an unreasonable expectation so neither did they. The regular commute by train also keeps them in touch with the stresses and strains experienced by local people in a way that staying in a luxury central London flat would not.

 

Well done to our MPs for setting the standard by interpreting the substance of the allowance instead of imitating the actions of some members of other parties who are riding the gravy train for everything they can get! It makes me proud to be a Lib Dem!

Saturday 14th March 4.30pm

 

 

Sutton Mayor’s Fundraising Dinner at House of Commons

My husband & I had a very pleasant evening starting with a tour of the Houses of Parliament followed by dinner with the Mayor in the House of Commons Members Room.

 

A number of mayors from other boroughs attended the dinner together with our local MPs Paul Burstow & Tom Brake. I was seated next to the Mayor of Merton who advised me that he was the youngest Mayor of Merton in its entire history. However he was not the youngest mayor currently standing, that honour had gone to a different borough.

 

After dinner we had the pleasure of Jeremy Vines giving us a talk about some of his experiences as a journalist and his views about how he believes all politics are local politics.

 

All funds raised by the evening will go to our Mayor’s Charity the Royal Marsden Hospital Wolfson Childrens and Adolescent Unit, Sutton.

 

Tuesday 10th March 7pm

Wallington South Safer Neighbourhoods Ward Panel Meeting

Under the Councillors’ Update part of this meeting I was pleased to finally confirm that the Your High drug paraphanalia shop on Stafford Road was closed and the lease to the shop owners revoked. I also fed back on the final plans for the Wallington Station Access Scheme and advised that the road works around Woodcote Road were in respect of the synchronisation of the traffic lights. Cllr. Bailey updated on the situation with Mint House and clarified that once the building was no longer needed for the decanted Shotfield practice it was expected to be used for health purposes by the PCT.

 

Sgt LeShirley updated the Panel on progress against the three priorities set for the last quarter, which covered the Christmas & New Year period. He was please to present figures that showed a reduction in the number of burglaries in the specified area compared to the same period in 2008 and felt that this was as a result of increased undercover & overnight surveillance work by members of his team.

 

There had been a spate of motor vehicle crime in the ward and it was felt that this should remain a policing priority for the next quarter. Unfortunately an incident where the perpetrator had been caught red handed by the SNT had been unable to be followed through due to the owner of the property in question refusing to make a statement.

 

The Panel was provided with more detail to the anti-social behaviour calls noted on a map of the area. Many of the calls were trivial incidences not requiring police attendance. There were no incidents of an especially serious nature, most were in respect of rowdy behaviour or street drinking.

 

Sgt LeShirley advised of the house calls they had been making in Russell Court encouraging residents to form a Residents’ Association. Liaison officers from Moat Housing also attended the meeting and advised that they were looking to encourage the setting up of residents’ associations in Stag Court and their Brambledown Road & Shirley Avenue properties.

 

The Chair encouraged us to find new members for the Panel, and we were advised that there was a Police Community Event on 18^th March 6-8pm at Civic Offices in Sutton to which any members of the public were welcome.

 

Sgt. LeShirley also advised that the new SNT website was up and running and encouraged us to check it out.

Monday 9th March 7.30pm

 

Royal Marsden Joint Scrutiny Committee

The Royal Marsden is based over two sites; one in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and the other in the London Borough of Sutton. Because of this a joint committee is formed with representatives from both boroughs to scrutinise the Annual Review of this NHS Foundation Trust Hospital dedicated to cancer care.

 

The committee had been provided with copies of the Annual Review and Integrated Governance Monitoring Report prior to the meeting.

 

Cllr. Christopher Buckmaster from Kensington & Chelsea chaired the meeting whilst I assumed the role of vice chair.

 

As this meeting was being held in Sutton it fell to me to welcome everyone to the borough before handing over to Cllr. Buckmaster.

 

Representatives from the NHS Trust, including Cally Palmer the Chief Executive and Shelley Dolan Chief Nurse, gave a short presentation highlighting the work of the trust and its achievement for a second year of a ‘double excellent’ rating from the Healthcare Commission. We were also advised of the investment & improvements being made to the Chelsea building following the fire and plans in place for the expansion and development of the Sutton site.

 

There was much congratulation of the trust by members from Kensington & Chelsea on its achievement of a second excellent rating along with questions around how the trust worked with and involved its local communities.

 

Cllr. Carter from Sutton made enquiries about their rates of hospital acquired infections (HAI) which were apparently quite low, although not entirely eradicated. Considering the high prevalence of intravenous tubes and invasive procedures at the Royal Marsden it was an achievement that the Trust had managed to keep levels of HAI low.

 

Ms Dolan spoke about the Trust’s consideration of ‘survivorship’ and the implications of managing a potentially long term condition. I therefore asked about the Trust’s awareness of carers and the burden that this situation can place on family and friends. I wondered if they had a specific policy in relation to carers. I was told that they did have some awareness and had been looking at information from the University of Nebraska about training for carers. It sounded similar to the expert carers initiative being considered in the UK.

 

The committee was advised that the Trust was considering using additional land on the Sutton site for a diagnostic clinic also incorporating GP services. They also said that they were considering improvements to the car park area and I requested that they speak with Sutton Council to ensure local resident involvement in these plans as it is such a residential area.

 

I had a query on an item in the financial statements which showed the realisation of the accounting gain arising from the fire before full receipt of the insurance proceeds.

 

I also probed the ‘industry funding’ of the Marsden’s research activities and received assurance  that there was no dominance by any particular pharmaceutical company, indeed the Trust had refused to participate in a proposal to link with ‘preferred’ drug companies in order to maintain its independence. I was also interested to hear that the Trust had a good output of published peer –reviewed trials but was aware of the propensity for the editors of medical journals to only publish positive reports and were looking into ways to balance this effect perhaps by use of the internet.

 

Thursday 5th March 7.30pm

Health & Well Being Scrutiny Committee

At this committee the main items discussed were GP Provision, Aggression and safeguarding of Staff & Clients, and a briefing on the Sutton & Merton PCT Annual Plan.

 

Paul Burstow, MP for Sutton & Cheam had been invited to give anecdotal evidence from his postbag about GP Provision in the area. Paul highlighted apparent ‘health wastelands’ in the Worcester Park area, connected with, but not solely around the Hamptons development.

 

A Doctor Harper who was also familiar with the area had been invited to provide input on the issue and he advised that he too was aware of gaps in GP provision on the Worcester Park borders. He also gave a general impression that GPs did not feel as supported by the PCT as they had been in the past. The PCT role seemed to have changed from a supportive, training model to a policing role.

 

Simon Latham attended to discuss a report prepared for the committee on aggressive incidents experienced by Adult Social Services & Housing Staff over comparative periods. The committee members were concerned about the high number of instances and enquired about procedures to mitigate these incidences. We were advised of the protocols in place for dealing with reporting aggressive incidents, including training. I enquired whether the training included techniques to prevent minor incidences escalating into more serious situations and was advised that such training was included.

 

Enquiries were made about the role of the Council in helping to prevent aggression towards staff of commissioned providers and it was agreed to receive this information at a future meeting.

 

Stephen Evans attended the meeting to give a progress report on the Annual Plan of the Sutton & Merton PCT. There was concern about whether efficiency savings made by the PCT might impact on social services by requiring them to pick up the pieces where services were reduced. Adi Cooper replied on behalf on the Council’s Adult Social Services & Housing Department to reassure us that she attended regular meetings with PCT executives specifically to monitor such impact and there was close working between the two organisations.

 

It was agreed to look in more detail at joint working on emergency planning at a future meeting.

Monday 2nd March 7pm

Full Council

The Conservative opposition were noticeably better behaved at tonight’s meeting, almost falling over themselves to be more agreeable in the presence of the press and public.

 

The meeting started off most interestingly as under ‘Questions asked by members of the public’ two of the five questions were asked by the wives of sitting Conservative councillors! Mrs Howell raised the issue of dog fouling & Mrs Russell took issue with the Life Centre.

 

The two agenda items that received most attention at the meeting were the regeneration of the Elizabeth House Sheltered Housing Scheme and the 2009/10 Council Budget.

 

As a number of representatives of residents of Elizabeth House were in attendance this item was taken first. The matter had been referred to full council by Conservative members. The issue concerned the report made by independent firm Tribal Consulting which concluded that the existing sheltered housing scheme was not fit for purpose and, most significant here, stated that refurbishment of the properties would not bring them up to adequate sheltered housing standards, would not meet the needs of residents with significant care needs, and would result in a loss in the overall number of units on the site. It did state that a phased development would be workable at the site.

 

Cllr Colin Stears, the Executive Member with responsibility for Adult Social Services and Housing had submitted some alterations to the recommendations which aimed to formalise the council’s intent to involve the existing residents of the scheme in the development of the new build and to ensure that there was close monitoring of every stage of the process. The opposition had also submitted an amendment. As the alteration and the amendment were so similar in content it was obvious that there was agreement between the parties and Cllr. Witham agreed to withhold his amendment and support Cllr. Stear’s altered recommendation.

 

I had prepared a speech on this motion highlighting the nature of the accommodation Elizabeth House residents were currently living in – studio flats without their own bathrooms meaning residents had to share communal facilities with other residents; stairs and narrow doorways unsuitable for wheelchair users or the infirm; no lifts and accommodation not large enough to permit visits from family. However, due to the amount of agreement over the details of the recommendations following the report it was felt that my speech was not necessary, much to the dismay of my colleague Cllr. Slark, who felt that these issues were central to the issue of regeneration.

 

The remainder of the meeting was taken with the debate on the Council’s proposed budget.

 

In the current economic climate this budget had been a difficult one. The desire to keep the council tax burden as low as possible had to be balanced with maintaining services and protecting the vulnerable and less fortunate from the effects of the recession. Councillor Drage, executive member for resources, stated that he was not prepared to follow the example of other boroughs and raise the criteria for access to social care, meaning that we remained one of only two London boroughs with moderate level criteria; both Liberal Democrat run councils. However this also meant that we had to factor in growth in these areas, for example the demand for services for autistic children are increasing rapidly. We have stuck to this policy of offering help at the moderate level of need on the grounds of prudence; early intervention can often prevent deterioration of a situation thereby avoiding greater & more prolonged demands on our services later.

 

As widely publicised the Tory opposition called on us to freeze the council tax. Their ‘fully costed’ means of doing this meant using up the general reserves listed in the balance sheet. This naïve and short-term solution was derided by Cllr. Drage and myself, among others. Councillor Drage pointed out that this might work for one year but then left the council totally exposed to the vagaries of the economic climate in future years. I ridiculed the Tories’ claims to have “uncovered £11million sitting in council coffers” as this ‘research’ simply required a perfunctory reading of the council’s financial statements, something that I would expect was a requirement of any opposition challenging a proposed budget.

 

The opposition did in fact only give the use of general reserves method of budgeting a slight outing during the debate, seemingly already embarrassed at having suggested it. Instead they focused their attack on the Life Skills centre – a development project now part of the capital programme. Apparently we should turn down the offer of £4million from central government to help build a new library, community centre and youth facilities. They failed to see that this would also take away the employment opportunities for local people to work on this project. Nor the fact that halting this project would not make any more money available for council services as capital funds cannot be used to supplement everyday operations.

 

The next line of attack from the Tories was to refer to other councils that had managed to freeze their council tax levels. They didn’t highlight what services these councils had had to cut to afford this freeze. We countered with our reputation as a value for money authority, receiving less than 50% of our budgeted requirements from central government yet still providing high quality services. This was in sharp contrast to other boroughs such as Kensington & Chelsea who receive a grant covering 58% of their requirements; Wandsworth who receive 75%, or Westminster who receive 78%. You also have to question how much benefit an extra £50 per household would really bring – less than a pound a week. And this would provide an equal benefit to those residents living in large houses in Cheam and Worcester Park as for residents struggling on the breadline on the Roundshaw Estate or in St Helier ward.

 

As for the previous twenty nine years in opposition the Tories failed to produce an alternative budget. When Cllr. Kane highlighted this fact it was met with groans. I am not sure whether these were groans of embarrassment from the back benches or groans at the thought of actually having to do a few sums. I have been told that even when the Liberal Democrats were the opposition and down to just two members they still managed to produce an alternative budget. It seems just lazy to me that with twenty one members the opposition still can’t put together a few figures.

 

In summary my analysis of the Conservatives’ budget plans to deal with the recession consist of putting everything on hold and hoping it will all go away soon: the equivalent of pulling the covers over your head when things get tough instead of facing up to the challenging times ahead and not expecting it to be easy or of being popular.

 

Friday 27th February 9.30am

House Calls with the Wallington South Safer Neighbourhood Team

The local Safer Neighbourhoods Team has identified Russell Court in Ross Road as an area presenting a particular set of difficulties. There had been numerous complaints about dog fouling in the area; some anti social behaviour incidents as well as some ongoing neighbour disputes. The police sergeant Peter LeShirley felt that setting up a residents’ association for the area might help foster a greater sense of community and encourage residents to take back ownership of their area. Sgt LeShirley had enlisted the housing association representative and local ward councillors to help with this task and we were happy to help. Over a number of weeks the Safer Neighbourhood Team endeavered to knock on every door in Russell Court and encourage the residents to support and become involved with the residents assiociation. Cllr. Richard Bailey and I accompanied the team on a number of these house calls.

 

In the course of these visits I was particularly impressed by one mother’s determination to keep her teenage son out of trouble. She was aware that teenagers hanging out on the streets attracted the attentions of drug dealers looking for new business so she had decided to let her son and his friends socialise at her house, whilst she occupied herself upstairs. She may not approve of the company her son kept but she felt that at least whilst they were in her house she knew where they were and that they were not getting into trouble. She also talked of arranging a rota with other mums of teenagers so that when the weather improved and the kids wanted to meet outdoors there was always one parent with them keeping an eye on them. She was confident that the presence of a parent would be sufficient means to keep the teenagers in check. It was refreshing to hear of a parent prepared to take this sort of action when so many teenagers seem to have been given up on by parents unwilling to accept responsibility for their offspring’s behaviour.

 

Cllr. Bailey has been instrumental in increasing the surveillance of this area by enforcement officers able to issue on the spot fines for dog fouling offences and is also seeing if dog bins can be supplied to the area.

 

The inaugural meeting of the residents association will take place on 7^th April.