Tag Archives: divestment

November Report: whats happening at SCC

To be frank, I’ve covered many of the details of this month’s report to Woodbridge town council in other posts, but people might well be interested in the proposals about  Libraries, Highways and Archives – all of which are decided outside full council by the Conservative-run Cabinet. Some of these will definitely bear keeping in mind.

Cabinet: Archives, Libraries, Highways and Social Outcomes

At this month’s Cabinet meeting (today, 8th of November) cabinet will be voting on proposals to:

  • create a new heritage organisation to look after Archives and Archaeology in Suffolk. The suggestion is that this should be in partnership with with the Museum of East Anglian Life – a folk museum in Stowmarket. At the briefing I raised concerns that this should end up midSuffolk-oriented and aimed at the tourism spectrum rather than fully considering the academic/research element

  • create an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS) to run the future Suffolk Library service. This is anticipated to run local libraries and outreach services according to individual circumstances.

  • divestment of most of the future Suffolk highways services to a private sector company on the basis that “a fully integrated service model is considered to have the greatest potential to drive out savings and efficiencies whilst protecting the resilience of the service,” Please note the use of the passive tense in that sentence. At the briefing for this I asked who this passive was referring to – eg. who it was who considered this option to have the ‘greatest potential’? I was told it was ‘the market’.I asked who ‘the market’ was? The answer was ‘a number of large and medium-size private companies’  with an interest in making a profit from this option.
    I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to how disinterested this ‘market’ advice was. I would also like to remind you of the success of many past privatisations of public services in terms of customer service and cost. The railways, for example.

  • developing an investment fund to achieve social outcomes in Suffolk in collaboration with The Suffolk Foundation.

Olympic torch coming to Woodbridge

I’m delighted to say that Woodbridge has been chosen to be be one of the 16 towns in Suffolk through which the Olympic torch relay passes on its way to London next year. The other  Suffolk towns through which the Olympic  flame will be carried between 5-7 July 2012 are: Lowestoft, Wrentham, Reydon, Southwold, Kelsale, Saxmundham, Aldeburgh, Wickham Market, Ufford, Melton, Felixstowe, Ipswich, Haverhill, Bury St Edmunds, and Newmarket

Suffolk has new Chief Executive

By now, I’m sure its old news that Deborah Cadman has been appointed as SCC Chief Executive. The unanimous choice of the Staff Appointments Committee, she’s currently Chief Executive at the East of England Development Agency, and prior to that Chief Executive at St Edmundsbury Borough

I’m sure that you will also be pleased that her pay is significantly less than that of the previous incumbent: £155,000 with no bonuses or annual pay increments.

Suffolk Police introduce non-urgent 101 number

Suffolk Police have launched a new easy-to-remember number – 101- for non-urgent contact . This replaces the not-at-all- easy-to-remember standard switchboard number of 01473 613500.

The new 101 service is not for emergencies. For immediate, urgent police assistance, people should continue to ring 999

County councillor’s surgery

I have started a surgery for constituents: 3rd Saturday of each month, 10-12 in Woodbridge library; the first one being on October 22nd. The next one will be 19 November.

Caring or care-less?

SCC has now decided to sell its care homes ‘as going concerns’ – or so we heard last month.

Very much  better than the original suggestion of choice which had an indefinable suggestion of  ‘prime building site in desirable location’ about it. Indeed – now that management buy-outs from existing staff are no longer  excluded – it could result in little noticeable chance for the people of Suffolk, and particularly the residents. This is to be welcomed.

But where does all SCC’s past rhetoric about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the private sector sit with the downfall of Southern Cross, the UK’s largest private care provider?

Southern Cross is Britain’s biggest care homes operator, with 750 homes – eight of which are in Suffolk. It is currently teetering on the brink of financial collapse as it struggles to pay the rent for what the portfolio-holder for Adult Care Services would describe as its  ‘cost-effective care homes’.  But as Southern Cross strikes  a deal with its landlords in a last-ditch attempt to avoid bankruptcy, we haven’t heard too much from its creditors about its efficiency and cost-effectiveness .

Indeed, Age UK has been quoted as saying

“In future, we would like to see all home care providers having to demonstrate to regulators a solid business model. Without this they should not be able to run care homes. The sector would benefit from greater transparency.”

So it seems that all that past New Strategic Direction bombast  from Suffolk’s Tory Cabinet  about how the private sector was so much more  efficient in the care of the elderly was based on a system with no requirement for transparency or a solid business model.

Why doesn’t that surprise me?

A petition that won’t lie down: democracy and post-16 travel cards

Last week Suffolk’s  ‘Save the  eXplore Card’ petition earned the right to be discussed at full Council – having received over 6,000 signatures.   (To remind you: this  young person’s travel card, a brainchild of SCC’s last Lib-Lab Coalition, has been cut halfway through this academic year without any form of consultation or risk assessment by Suffolk County Council.)

Unfortunately, it turned out that SCC – having set up their e-petition site as a legal requirement – had not thought at all about what should happen after an e-petition had reached 3675 signatures  and was discussed at full council – as is required by the SCC constitution .

From the first there was great confusion.

The originator (Patrick Gillard)  found that his petition had not been acknowledged:  it still registers as ‘failed to achieve the requisite number of signatures’ on the epetition site.  SCC had not invited him to speak as he asked (and was his constitutional right). When he insisted on speaking, another speaker (Greer Hill, Otley College) was un-invited by SCC. After pressure from myself and Kathy Pollard, both speakers were finally allowed their 5 minutes  – but this left only 10 minutes for discussion.  SCC offered no explanation for this.  This was a grave discourtesy to the speakers and to all those thousands of petitioners  they represented.

Although this  petition was heard in the middle of GCSE, A.A/S and college exams, it was handed to Transport Portfolioholder Guy McGregor by a very large group of  Just 42 youth club members, other young people,  MYPs, councillors, and representatives of schools and colleges. These were eager to  explain their anxieties. Cllr McGregor’s  response was his old traditional theme “you can only spend a pound once.” He did not explain why he had failed to consult on this cut or explored alternative options. No explanation of this has ever been forthcoming!

At this point it turned out that two teenage members of Woodbridge’s Just 42  youth club , who had scheduled a public question, had not had this question acknowledged at all by SCC. I had to  go to great pains to get their  right to speak agreed  and it was only very few minutes before the debate that it was confirmed. This was another grave discourtesy – in this case,  to the youngest public questioners ever to address the council!

During the meeting, SCC’s new Leader Mark Bee spoke about a new era based on the principles of  Listening; Openness/ transparency; and Practical, common sense solutions to problems.  Although he mentioned other cuts,  he never directly mentioned the Explore card. The resounding silence of SCC’s administration re this cut and the lack of any consultation is one of the great mysteries of this year.

After the petitioners had spoken, Councillors from all parties had the opportunity to speak briefly before  the portfolio holder replied.  (my speech below). Cllr McGregor did not repoond to these concerns raised but merely re- asserted that  the cut was necessary.

At this point it became clear that no-one had any idea as to what was to happen nextClearly ending the process undemocratically, without a vote,  by means of a response from the very person who had organised, agreed and implemented the cut made the whole epetition process completely futile. After a heated exchange in the chamber, a  short recess was announced. During this  Mark Bee and Guy McGregor spoke directly to the young people from Just 42 and  promised that the problems of their particular cut would go  before scrutiny. This was however, outside the chamber, and remains unminuted.

The strength of the young people’s clear, polite and determined  objections made it clear to the administration at this point – if not before – quite how much people care about  this cut . These young people were not coming here to observe democracy: they were coming to take part!

Three  things are clear –

  • the Explore card may be dead but it ain’t lying down;
  • SCC MUST tell the petitioners officially  now, exactly what is to happen next
    – and finally;
  • SCC’s procedure for dealing with e-petitions MUST be defined before the next council meeting in order to prevent this a repeat of Thursday’s shambles and to ensure these petitions to perform the constitutional function for which they were created.

My speech on the Explore card 26 May 2011

We’ve heard first hand – from the thousands of responses to the petition, from those  addressed us – most of all from individual young people in our divisions – that this cut was a bad idea – a short term fix  that didn’t consider the future.

There was no impact assessment for this cut –made  halfway through the educational year. Instead SCC boxticker noted  blandly that

There may be an adverse impact to the 15-19 age group – but there was  no need for an impact assessment  as it is a discretionary activity and has been identified as a budget saving proposal

In other words – it will have an impact but we don’t care!

Rather like saying I’ll  pay my council tax because I have to  but  I won’t pay into a pension because I’m feeling poor. The explore card expenditure is not just money paid out – it is money invested in the future  it  IS our pension plan – The young people of Suffolk – future builders, magistrates, nurses, shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, firemen, soldiers, carers, taxpayers – are our future and we will be relying on them in the years to come. It is in our interests to support them now so we can get the best out of them when we need them later on.

The administration tell us that we can’t afford it and that home-to-school transport cuts are  ameliorated by help with post-16 discretionary passes, and tempering the Catholic transport decision.

This is a red herring.

The Explore card is the most important home-to-school pass we had because it was such excellent value for money – giving halfprice travel at all times to all places to all young people at a total cost to the council of less than £30 a year for each of its 55,000 users!

Where a discretionary pass  gives one school day, school hour  journey each way at the cost of £150 a term to the parent and a lot more to the council, the explore card  was much more flexible- used by those studying in the evening or  multi-site, by those  wanting to attend a distant college because the local school didn’t run the course,, those on training courses outside the scope of Suffolk’s transport policy, starting a first time job or going to job interviews to find one. Those who want to go out safely in the evening, without worry about road conditions and ability to drive. Those who we don’t want to hang about the bus stop because they can’t afford to get on a bus. All  this for £30 a head.

Colleagues, we can afford this investment in our future. I won’t remind you of some of the recent headlines on SCC expenditure  but  we all know that it is not as simple as “can’t pay wont pay” . Even in a time of cuts there’s a large element of what we choose to pay for. Suffolk is poor but resilient – we’ve enough in the reserves to pay to reverse  this decision and continue investing this  £30 a head in the future of these young people and our county.