UNHEALTHY BUSINESS

I attended the first Policy Commission of which I am a member last night - the Care, Health Scrutiny & Housing one.

On arrival I learnt that the IW NHS Healthcare Trust Board had that day - and without advising their Council 'partners' - revealed their financial recovery plan. In this plan were (just a taste) - 241 jobs to be lost, an end to all financial help with fares to mainland hospitals, and the sale for capital gain of a number of properties, including Shackleton House and The Kestrels. There was much more in the paper I got brief access to.

Their was outrage ! And from all parties. This Policy Commission also fulfils the statutory role of Health Scrutiny Committee and not to have been consulted in advance was a real bullet in the foot by the so-called managers in the local NHS.

Of course, I pointed out that this was just typical of the way IW health services have been run throughout my 16 years here, and reminded my councillor colleagues that only I and two others had spoken and voted against the proposed health and social care merger at the June Full Council meeting. And for exactly the sort of reason we were now hearing about. I proposed that we call in the Trust's Chief Executive to a special Commission meeting within 10 working days so that we can scrutinise this so-called recovery plan and its potential effects on our Island's health. This was unanimously agreed.

Later there was discussion about a future meeting to consider the provision of housing services - privatisation (euphemistically called strategic partnering) once again on the agenda. Of course this will be considered. However, both myself and the Independent member of the Commission were able to raise the need for more affordable housing for Islanders if we are to avoid a future social problem. I also pressed my wish to see at least 50% of homes in any future Pan development being affordable to Islanders. I was told this is existing policy for the Council, but it certainly does not feature in the Pan Masterplan to my recollection, where 30% is mentioned. Ideally I would like to see it as 100% !

Special Full Council on Friday to approve last year's accounts. These should have been done by the Scrutiny Committee today, but as that committee hasn't got any opposition members after last week's walkouts and resignations it can't meet. Compromises over meeting times have been suggested by one pragmatic leading councillor, which would be accepted by the opposition (former) members of the committee, but I understand the beloved Leader won't have it ! Could be fun again.......

PROPOSED TRAFFIC CHANGES FOR NEWPORT

Went along to the Newport Area Forum last evening to consider proposed traffic changes in central Newport - mainly reversal of the one way system in Trafalgar Road and re-introduction of two-way traffic outside Nodehill Middle School, but with a plethora of new regulations for adjacent streets. Although this is not in my ward, or indeed any other Newport councillor's ward apart from Cllr Mike Cunningham (four of us were present), such changes can effect the whole of Newport; hence, the consideration at the Forum.

As ever in these situations, there were lots of concerns and almost a bewiderment as to why some of the changes are proposed - although all support the Trafalgar Road reversal to get traffic off Whitepit Lane. Apparently the Council Cabinet member for transport issues - Cllr Ian Ward (Sandown South) had been invited along to the meeting, but could not make it. All agreed that we needed to understand the rationale behind the proposals and in the meantime would submit a list of objections. Cllr Ward then to be asked along to our next meeting in September to enlighten us to the reasons for some of the proposed changes.

A good example of Newport councillors working together for the whole town.

OPPOSITION WALKOUT - SCRUTINY CHAIR TO RESIGN

Full Council tonight. Motion from Tories to force the opposition-lead Scrutiny Committee to meet at 6pm in future, instead of the agreed 4pm (see my blog post yesterday). I and others made the point that it should be the decision of the opposition, not diktat by the leadership, if overview and scrutiny is to be independent of the leadership - as they claim they want it to be. Personally I prefer evening meetings, but the principle of opposition control of scrutiny must be defended. Evening meetings won't necessarily be attractive to all members of the public with young children and other caring responsibilities

An amendment from Cllr Mazillius to allow the Scutiny Committee freedom to decide start times was then defeated by 25 votes to 12 - all opposition members present in favour, plus Tory councillors Peacey-Wilcox and Churchman - with two further Tories abstaining (Scoccia and Cabinet member Hunter-Henderson). Before the main Tory motion was then approved, Deputy Leader Cllr Joyce made a speech supporting the opposition's right to decide and then promptly voted for the Tory motion. Two cabinet members all over the place ! Watch your back Cllr Sutton....

At that point Cllrs Mazillius (Chair of the Scutiny Committee), Stephens (Vice Chair), Adams, Bowker, Deborah Gardiner and myself walked out of the meeting in protest. On the way out of County Hall Cllr Mazillius told the CP reporter that he, Stephens and Cllr Hancock (absent ill tonight) would all be withdrawing from membership of the Scrutiny Committee, as did Cllrs Gardiner and Adams. Neither John Bowker or myself - neither of us members of this committee - will take their places. Interestingly the two remaining members of the Independent Group - Miller and Humby - stayed in the meeting..........

So where does this leave scrutiny being in the hands of the opposition ?

TORY DIDDUMS

The first meeting of the new Scrutiny Committee yesterday afternoon - which is basically the only Council forum where opposition members have a majority. Purpose is to examine decisions of the new Council leadership and make contrary recommendations to Cabinet. We have one place, which is Deborah Gardiner this year and then we will rotate each May.

Only five of the 11 members turned up ! Deborah, 2 of the 3 independents, one of the 3 LibDems, and one of the 4 Tories. Three of the Tories refused to arrive until 6pm as they objected to a public meeting starting at 4pm in line with their manifesto pledge, even though they had agreed this in a 'development' session a few weeks earlier. Interestingly two of the four Policy Commissions that they control were originally scheduled for 4pm and were only recently changed to 6pm. At 6pm sharp two of the absentees ostentatiously joined the meeting. It was just like the school playground used to be !

The committee looked at the recent decision to abandon a move to a 2-tier school system, with Cabinet member for education Cllr Joyce saying it would make 'no iota of difference' if the committee found the decision to be disproportionate and not based on evidence.

Very interesting that when they considered the need to make an estimated £9million of cuts to next year's budget to meet the Tory manifesto commitment, the one Tory councillor present, Cllr Cunningham, was blaming the government ! Clearly he has yet to work out that these cuts are planned because of his parties' promises and before they have any idea what the government grant settlement is for 2006-7. Another example of a Tory who has absolutely no idea of what his party promised the electorate at the elections. Scary !

SOLENT TV Website - 13.07.05

ROBIN HOOD ST PLANS APPROVED – AGAINST LOCAL WISHES

Council planners have given a development in Newport the go-ahead – a decision that goes against the wishes of a number of local residents and the councillor representing the area.

Outline planning permission was granted for seven residential units to be built on a plot of land on Robin Hood Street currently occupied by one property, which will be demolished. The local councillor, Cllr Geoff Lumley, believes the plans represent overdevelopment of the site and loss of privacy for neighbouring properties. Six local residents wrote to the council to object on similar grounds, but members of the Development Control Committee passed the plans at their meeting last night.

PLANNING NONSENSE

I attended the Development Control Sub-Committee tonight to object to a planning re-application on Robin Hood St, along with a local resident. A classic case of infilling to excess, with little amenity for future residents - seven flats where there is currently one house.

After both the resident and I had spoken the committee then voted 5 votes to 4 to reject the officer's recommendation for approval. They then had to come up with planning reasons for refusal other than social and traffic reasons. Two committee members proposed something which was then lost with only 2 votes in favour and four abstentions. A Liberal councillor then proposed acceptance on the basis that we could end up with the original application for 9 flats if the developer appealed to an Inspector. This then went through by 5 votes to 2 !

So despite winning the argument the Kafka-esque rules of Planning meant that refusal was turned into approval within about 10 minutes !!!!!

Planning is indeed not in the interests of local people. I am glad I declined to be a member of this committee.

WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT ?

I attended the first of the new Policy Commissions yesterday evening - the Children & School Results one. I am not a member of this one, but will attend every one that I can.

My colleague Deborah Gardiner is a member of this one, but she was at a conference with the Council Leader and the other opposition member, Garry Price, wasn't there - I have heard that he has stood down as LibDem Group leader after just 2 months. So the Commission had 5 new Tories there, together with the Cabinet member for Childrens Services.

It was bizarre ! There is no public question/contribution time, and no opportunity for other councillors in attendance to make contributions - there were two old hand Tories there observing as well as me. However, the 'Standards not Tiers' invitees were treated like royalty. Conversely I got the feeling that it is 'blame the school governors' time in relation to the poor performance of Island children at GCSE etc. All in all I found the level of discussion dispriting in the extreme.

More importantly I am entirely unclear what the purpose or outcomes of the meeting were. I was later told by the County Press reporter that he had asked the same question at the end, and he was told that the deliberations will be taken on board by the responsible Cabinet member as they deliver their manifesto commitments.

I know it is early days, but this approach to policy development does not bode well for the future. This Commission seems to be purely advisory, with all decisions left to Cabinet - the last two of which's meetings have been cancelled ! As I said - BIZARRE !

PARTY POLITICS ON YOUR COUNCIL TAX

The IW Council's Media Unit yesterday issued a press release that was as party political as anything I have ever seen emanate from County Hall. It claimed delivery of a number of Tory manifesto pledges to timetable. Deborah and I issued a Labour press release last week pointing out the Tories' failure to deliver on some of their timetabled pledges. We did not use the Media Unit and would not have dreamed of doing so. We consider that party politics should be dealt with by the local political parties; not funded by the Council tax payer. We will pursue this further. It is an abuse of Council taxpayers money

A 'Change Management Plan' has been issued to all Council staff by the Directors of the Council. This gives some information to staff on the new administration's plans for delivering a strategic partnership for many local services. This was the first I had seen of this paper; but then that is not unusual in this 'inclusive' Council ! The paper is written in the new gobbledegook favoured by this new regime. We in the Labour Party want to see excellent public services for Islanders, delivered by Islanders, from island bases. Strategic partnering will lead to jobs being undertaken by a company based on the mainland. Is that what Islanders want ?

ALL A BIT QUIET !

Not much to report over the last week. Obviously I continue to deal with individual matters for Pan residents, but County Hall is pretty quiet in terms of Tory initiatives. Indeed they have cancelled the last two Cabinet meetings.

Deborah and I have drawn the media's attention to the failure of the new administration to deliver some of their more sensible manifesto commitments to the timetable they set themselves - residents parking ticket within one week, school improvement action plans within one month, lobbying government for more funding for proposed NHS/Social Services Trust within one month. Some coverage in County Press this week, as well as on Solent TV.

I plan to attend the Children's Services and School Results Policy Commission next week to pursue the school improvement commitments. I am not on this commission, but I still want to have input on a key issue for the IW.

Visited the archaeological team yesterday. They are disapponted at how little they have turned up on the proposed development site - as am I and quite a few local residents. However, was able to reassure myself that the 'dig' has been as comprehensive as we would expect

Today the traffic speed and volume monitoring devices should be on Furrlongs for two weeks. Hopefully this will supply evidence for more traffic calming measures on the estate. Also noticed a similar device on Staplers Road