As a minority party, we don’t get many motions passed by Full Council. In my view this motion is the most potentially significant put forward by a Liberal Democrat and agreed  by the Council as a whole.

Stephen Cooksey (LD County Councillor for Dorking and the Holmwoods) proposed:

‘This Council notes that the present Parliament has approved theIdentity Card Act 2006.

This Council believes that:

• the use by government of the ID card and database will have a detrimental effect on the relationship between the individual and the state;

• the scheme will impose wholly disproportionate costs on the Council and other public bodies which will include both implementation and operational costs;

• this will have a damaging effect on all residents of Surrey.

This Council resolves, unless required to do so by law, to:

(1) take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation tothe National Identity Card Scheme;

(2) establish as Council policy that National Identity Cards will notbe required in order to obtain Council benefits or services;

(3) refuse to participate in the national database.’  

Spelthorne, Mole Valley and Guildford Councils have already passed similar motions unanimously.

 In Surrey County Council we didn’t quite manage to make it unanimous - and not solely because of the two Labour party Councillors, who could be expected to support the Government’s legislation. (Otherwise, the motion was in keeping with both Tory and Liberal Democrat policy.) 

The vote split 46 for and 20 against, with 2 abstentions. Victor Agarwal (Labour) asked for a named vote, which was actually more interesting than unanimity; and demonstrated that our motion was not ‘motherhood and apple pie’, and so not worth opposing.

Obviously among the Woking Councillors John Doran and I were in favour; Shamas Tabrez was not there; but I will not rely on my memory to say how others voted. When the full minutes are on the SCC website you can check for yourself here.

I’ve been told a bit more about the recent Youth Development Service appointment in Woking.

The new full-time Neighbourhood Youth Worker for West Woking, based at Lakers  and ‘tasked to develop and increased and improved services to young people on Goldsworth Park’ but also working with Paul Clarke at the Woking Youth Arts Centre in Knaphill, is Kevin Cody.

In East Woking, Zahira (’Zee’) Virani will be taking over from Tracey Osborn at Sheerwater Youth Centre, while also working with Theresa Lee at Woking Youth Centre.

It’s hoped that both Zee and Kevin will be able to take up these posts in the second half of January.

The Old Library at Knaphill is up for sale, for the good reason that the building had reached the end of its useful life  (after being there ‘temporarily’ for 50 years) It would have been prohibitively expensive to build a new library on that site. The real alternatives were to close the library down and have no library in the village, or go for the now-existing successful and significantly library in Anchor Crescent, next to the Post Office. Anticipating the sale of the Old Library has allowed Surrey to meet the cost of the  new library.

Unfortunately the Old Library is standing empty, with nothing currently happening to it. Quite understandably people are asking why it couldn’t be turned to some use that would benefit the community - one suggestion has been a Farmers Market, though the current economic climate has turned decidedly unfavourable.

I’ve been talking to Surrey’s Property Services, and found that these are the limitations on what can be done:

The building is currently not  safe for members of the public to use. There are a number of problems, including no services (no water or electricity). The building is not fully water and wind-tight.  I am told that to bring it up to the point of meeting health and safety regulationi s so that you could allow members of the public to use it would cost a minimum of £30,000.

If a community group were to raise £30,000 for this, the longest Surrey would be willing to grant them a license for would be one year.

Surrey’s Property Services anticipate the property market will improve in due course, and as soon as they get a decent offer they will accept it - they want to realise the money, not hang on speculatively. But that still isn’t likely to be any time soon.

I am concerned about the appearance of the library as a dead spot in the centre of the village for however long it takes for the site to be redeveloped. The small garden by the path doesn’t strictly have any right of public access, but if a community group wanted to maintain it - and had the means to do so - Surrey would look at giving an on-going license to use it, with a one month notice period.

But is there anyone really wanting to take this on, not just to stand by approving of someone else doing it? As I have said before, I am happy to make sure that proposals are properly considered. It would be easiest done through another organisation like the Knaphill Residents Association - or perhaps one of the churches or Youth Groups? - But even for someone with a mind to volunteer to help with a community project, there are many other things that need doing, many other organisations that need help.

In the meantime, I will continue to talk to Surrey’s Property Services, and post anything new as and when possible.     

I’ve just heard that earlier this week the Youth Development Service succeeded in appointing a full-time Youth Worker for the west of Woking, who will be based at Lakers Youth Centre.

As well as leading the work there, they will supervise Woking Youth Arts Centre (WYAC)in Knaphill. (Although I think if there were a higher level of staffing at WYAC it could be even more fully used, it does have staff in post, so it shouldn’t be a matter of asking the newcomer to do more than one job.)

Inevitably it will take some time to get them here, but they should be in post not too long after Christmas.

Rock on the Hill party

… was thrown at the Kings House Coffee Shop on Monday night by Eileen Martin and her team from the Knaphill Residents Association for all those who were involved with the Rock on the Hill series of three music events for young people in Knaphill over the Summer. These were mainly young people, from the Winston Churchill School, the Woking Youth Arts Centre, and the Knaphill Challenger Scouts.

The High Sheriff of Surrey (did you know there was a Sheriff of Surrey?) gave out awards and certificates, and there was much-appreciated pizza and icecream for all.

I think the the experience gained by those taking part made the series of events well worthwhile, though it would have been even more valuable if more under-eighteens had been there to enjoy these well run gigs; but such things take time to build up, and Eileen has kept the enthusiasm and the teams going so that there’s going to be another ’Rock on the Hill’ event on the 2nd of December at the Winston Churchill School. More info at http://www.myspace.com/rockonthehill, unless you’re trying to view it on a computer using the SCC server - in which case you’ll find ‘Access Denied’ and that your attempt to access the site has been logged.

(Gosh, that makes me feel really baaaad … reminds me of my days in the Young Liberals when we were radical …)

I should add, you can’t get in to Rock on the Hill unless you’re under 18 or helping. For me the former is out, so it will have to be the latter. 

JAR - the Secretary of State states her terms

I mentioned in an earlier posting that Surrey has now been issued with its ‘Improvement Notice’ following the appalling Joint Area Review of Childrens Services. I couldn’t find it on the SCC website, so contacted a senior officer. He sent me the link a couple of days lates, and at that point it wasn’t so hard to find. Whether because the site had been adjusted or I hadn’t been looking properly to start with is perhaps not very useful to ask.

If you want to look at it, you can find it here.  I hope.

It’s quite clear and stark, ending with a reminder of the Government’s statutory powers to intervene directly.

While on the subject of the JAR follow-up, I was recently sent two printed copies of the Young Persons Jar.Very nice quality paper, colour printing, large font size, full-page colour photographs including nice photos of the Executive Member and of Andy Roberts, described simply as the ‘Chairman of the Children and Young People’s Commissioning Partnership for Surrey’, though probably better known within Surrey County Council as Surrey’s Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families.

I feel a Question coming on for the next full Council meeting about costs (even though we did have to publish it, did it need to be like this?) and the claim that is was written ‘by young people, for young people’.

Last Friday was suprisingly performance oriented - an unexpected call at 10.30 to stand in, instantly, leading Knaphill library’s Mother and Toddler rhyme time. It was fun. More fun than when there’s time to prepare and get nervous. Heads and shoulder, knees and toes … the wheels on the bus … and one of my favourites, a modern variant on Hickory Dickery which goes ‘Rocketty Tocketty’, and the mouse goes ‘fun!’ , then ‘coo!’ then ‘whee!’ to rhyme with one, two and three. 

In the evening, Surrey County Harp Ensemble.We had the school hall at Westfield instead of the usual over-crowded music room where the harps are at serious risk from the sharp edges of the music stands.  New repertoire - some O’Carolan, and some film music, to go with our utterly unique version of the theme from Pirates of the Caribbean.

Earlier that week, the Local Committee ‘Awayday’ - neither away, being held in Quadrant Court, Woking; nor a day. More a few hours in the evening, and since it was held in private I can’t write it up. But it involved a number of Surrey and Woking Officers as well as the Woking and Surrey members of the Local Committee, and a lot of exchanging of ideas and information. 

Warbury Lane VAS: Surrey and EDF again

There have been the usual e-mail and telephone inquiries and comments to follow up. Including pushing a residents patient but determined complaints about the new but not-working VAS sign at Warbury Lane up to Director level, having failed at Local Highways Manager and Head of Service levels.

I am told it is now working, though I have yet to see it myself.

EDF, you may not be surpised to know, was again involved.

EDF and OFGEM have both agreed to make an appearance at the Transportation Committee on the 3rd of December. The meeting will be at County Hall, and should be open to the public. Although I’m not a member of the Committee, I think I’m going to have to be there to hear what’s said - minutes never catch the authentic flavour.  

(All quotations are from the CSCI report headed ‘Independence, Wellbeing and Choice, Surrey County Council 2008′ which was published on the 21st of October, and can be found here. ) 

It was clear from the CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) report that Surrey County Council had tried to apply the lessons coming out of the appalling Joint Area Review of Childrens’ Services to services for vulnerable adults.

Although the JAR report wasn’t published until July, concerns had been coming through since last spring.  As Surrey’s poor procedures were shown up, especially with regard to safeguarding children, putting into question its own self-assessment,  there was time for any equivalent shortcomings in services within Adults and Community Care to begin to be addressed before the paper evidence went to the Inspectors, including ‘crucially the council’s own assessment of their overall performance’. 

So Surrey wasn’t shown to be groundlessly self-satisfied in this report, having carried out a review of cases in advance.

The areas of work the Inspectors looked at were Safeguarding Adults, Delivering Personalised Services, Access to Preventative Services, and the Council’s Capacity to Improve.

The judgements were: adequate, adequate, adequate, and uncertain.

But if you can only reach ‘adequate‘ after ‘the chief exectuive and elected members acted quickly and decisively [following the JAR] … [on] the implications for adult’s services generally and arrangements for safeguarding vulnerable adults specifically’ then the situation must have been fairly dire to start with.

Safeguarding Adults

Vulnerable adults were safeguarded and generally the right things were done. However the Council’s own (11th-hour) audit, confirmed by the Inspectors, ‘indentified inconsistencies in safeguarding practise.  …  Key safeguarding actions did not always take place in line with the multi-agency procedures. Protection plans or actons from meetings were not effectively monitored or followed up to ensure that they were having the required impact. There was no evidence that people who were the subject of an investigation or those who had made the referral were kept informed of the progress and outcome of the investigation.’

Particularly relevant to Boroughs like Woking with a significant ethnic mix ‘there was no representation from black and minority ethnic communities [on the adult safeguarding board] … The annual safeguarding report did not include a sufficiently detailend analysis … For example the annual report did not report on outcomes or provide a breakdown of referrals by ethnic background.’  …

‘Some representatives of people from black and minority ethnic communities had reported delays in early signs of abuse being recognised because of a lack of familiarity with some aspects of cultural diversity.’

(It was interesting that later the report noted ‘The use of direct payments was increasing among people from diverse communities as it ensured the provision of more sensitive and individually tailored support’.)

There are differing support services all over the County for vulnerable people, and information was not good enough … ‘Staff in support organisations, the contact centre and other agencies were confused by the differences in provision and this needed to be addressed if people using the services were to be truly empowered and safeguarded.’  

nb The safeguarding team was highly regarded and had significantly raised the profile of safeguarding vulnerable adults. Criticisms stem from poor management arrangements. 

Overall judgement: adequate

Delivering Personalised Services

Essentially what’s there is OK, but flawed by inconsistency and lack of coherent management.

‘ …numbers of carers and people funding their own care in particular had not been adequately supported or provided with information when they most needed it.’

Views of the Contact Centre were mixed, though the Inspectors ‘observed professional, effective and responsive practise … ‘.

Care planning ‘was improved, but not up to the standard of other comparable Councils, but ‘numbers of carers and people funding their own care in particular had not been adequately supported or provided with information when they most needed it.’ …

‘Carers’ assessments were not consistently undertaken. We heard from people for whom a carers’ assessment had only taken place in response to a request for support from a carer who had reached crisis point.’ 

Voucher systems for to give carers respite breaks were good, but didn’t work properly throughout the County through lack of provision.

Joint health and social care provision was valued, but was not organised properly; information had to be repeated too many times; staff turnover meant ‘having to repeat information which suggested that professionals did not read or did not have access to clear and up-to-date case records.’

Again there was poor information for carers and people using the services about what could be available for them - even the County Councils website gave wrong information when the Inspectors looked at it.

The Inspectors pointed out that it was particularly significant for Surrey, where 75% of older people would not qualify for community care funding and so are self-funding, and expressed surprise that most people paying for their own care said they had ‘limited support from professionals’ even though ‘the council offers assessment and care management regardless of on individual’s financial situation’.

Overall judgement: adequate

Access to Preventative Services

Some well-used and appreciated services, but ‘there were variations across different areas of the county that were a source of confusion for professional staff and people using the service.’ …

‘The experience for people from black and minority ethnic communnities was that referral to preventative support sometimes came too late to avert a crisis. Awareness among diverse communities of how to access support was limited.’

After an initial assessment, ‘the practise among professionals in referring people on to non care managed services and sources of information was inconsistent. Knowledge among staff and people using services about the range of support available was varied which had a direct impact on access to services. ‘

This seems to tie in with what I’ve been told: the social worker comes along and at the end of it hands you a couple of leaflets about organisations that might perhaps help.

Judgement: adequate

Capacity to Improve

In nearly four pages of Key Findings, for me one paragraph stood out:

‘The Council’s Business Delivery Review in 2006 had released additional resources for investment to develop adult social care. However, a consequence for key stakeholders was the reduction in managerial and front line capacity. Staff and partners thought the quality of their safeguarding and care management work was affected by heavy workloads but the area teams did not have a consistent and systematic approach to workload management.’

The BDR  led decreased front line capacity despite all Tory reassurances to the contrary.

Now, to maintain services even at the present level for the growing number of older people and vulnerable people, Surrey County Council is relying on the ‘transformation project’, which allows people in need to pay for the services they use directly, with the idea that this demand will generate better-suited and more efficient services. But ‘The council was in the early stages of realising the potential for partnership working to secure bests value from existing arrangements. Commissioning and specifically joint commissioning were under developed. The Council had invested significant additional resources and capacity in its ambitious transformation project. It was too early to confirm the council’s expectations that the recent actions to increase the leadership, senior management and commissioning capacity in adult social care would address these areas for development.’

The judgement on capacity to improve is uncertain.

In the circumstances I would say ‘uncertain’ gives the benefit of a substantial doubt, especially since the same judgement was made in 2006-7.

Heads have already rolled, metaphorically speaking, and there has been a re-organisation at the very top. Thankfully there has been some account taken of the damage that could be done by another root and branch re-organisation, and we’ve been told that teams on the ground should not be affected.