To do the right thing,

 To honour the dead.

 Dulce et decorum, 

 Like the man said.

(Scouts’ Parade on Remembrance Sunday)

I have deep respect for those of my parents generation who still feel the sadness of family and friends inescapably harmed by the second world war, and their own young lives re-directed and often limited by war.

I have to extend this respect to the friends and relatives of servicemen and women who voluntarily and professionally have been killed or hurt in the United Kingdom’s participation in wars and peace-keeping missions.

I have less respect for any of my contemporaries and those younger than me who join parades and take part in services that evoke military ritual in order to create a conventional, complacent conformity; a conformity that rests on the lazy or deliberately deceptive intellectual progression from saying nothing ill of the dead to saying nothing ill of the reasons why they died.

I find it especially saddening if children and young people dressed up in uniform are carried along by adults who they trust to take part in these parades.

This year, because of the casualties in Afghanistan, poppy-wearing seems more ubiquitous than ever, especially among people in the public eye.

It is ironic that the poppy, once so dense on Flanders’ fields that it became the symbol of appalling bloodshed and loss, is now at the heart of the conflict in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is ‘world class’ at producing opium poppies. The world needs legal, medical opium. A poor society benefits from trade to become more prosperous. A more prosperous poor country has a chance of becoming better educated, more open to outside influences, and more open to genuine reform.

Why can’t our leaders put these facts together?  

This was meant to be a brief round-up of some of the things that have happened since the Local Committee meeting on 22nd October; then there so much to write about, it grew.  But first, an explanation:

“IMHO”

Last week I got my over-60s bus pass. (Genuinely triffic - very pleased.) But it set me thinking, at this stage of my life, probably I ought to be sure enough of my opinions, and confident enough in myself and the people whose views I value, to express these views directly. I’m not very practised at this - what I normally aim for is to give a factual, reasoned and evidenced account or argument.

So I’m going to give it a go every now and then, under the heading IMHO (’in my humble opinion’, which I guess is webspeak for ‘this is me. Like it or loathe it.’

CEO Visit

David McNulty, the new CEO of Surrey County Council, has set himself the task of spending half a day with every one of the eighty Surrey County Councillors in their Division. Quite a task - but effectively orchestrated and documented first by his assistant at County Hall, and then by one of our Local Partnership Team directed to join the tour and make notes.

He came to Knaphill/Goldsworth Park recently, looked round Lakers and Beaufort Primary School, then walked along Knaphill High Street with me taking in the old and new libraries before stopping for tea and apple cake at the Kings House Coffee shop. Borough Councillors Denzil Coulson, Melanie Whitehand and Olly Wells had been able to join us, and that gave him a chance to get an idea of the sorts of issues in this part of Surrey.

He was, as he put it, ‘in listening mode’ - he is clearly a bright cookie, and it will be interesting to see how much both the style and content of the way things happen in SCC changes. You can read his SCC blog here , though unfortunately when I posted this it didn’t seem to have been updated since early October - I hope Surrey is not having too sapping an effect on him and more will appear soon. He seems to have kept blogging fairly consistently at Trafford, his last authority.

Quiz

David McNulty had to leave eariler than we initially expected because he had an appointment with Lady Toulson, the High Sheriff of Surrey.

This had unexpected benefits since ‘Who is currently Surrey’s High Sheriff ?’ came up at our Libdem Quiz the very next day. The team I was in won by one point. Thank you, Lady Toulson.

No Saving Pegasus

The Cabinet ‘reconsidered’ their decision to stop the Pegasus Bus scheme at the end of this school year early this week, but only to confirm what they had agreed. This was very disappointing for the cross-party group, supported by thetransport committee, that had managed to get the issue referred back to them.

One of these was David Goodwin, a Guildford County Councillor. His comment was:

“This was a pilot project which has not been properly assessed for other options such us increased fares, reduced costs and alternative sources of funding. No such quantitative report has been produced to demonstrate that the service could be made more viable. If the Conservatives had been serious about providing the service they would have carried out a detailed feasibility study, which has not been the case.”

Deposed Leader of the Council, County Councillor Nick Skellett, was not allowed to speak at the Cabinet meeting, although many had seen Pegasus as his ‘pet project’.

This decision will be a blow to parents in Guildford, but I understand there is ongoing discussion in the schools concerned about whether anything can be done to make the situation at all easier for them.

A truly scary document in the outwardly harmless guise of the ‘Corporate business plan 2010 - 2014? has been making the round of the Committees. Page 5 and page 6 have the most chilling at-a-glance diagrams - and the budgets at the bottom of page 6 are even then leave a £19M  ‘affordability gap’. (The link here is from the papers for the Schools and Learning meeting on Thursday 4th November).

When it came to the Schools and Learning Committee, Andy Roberts, the Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families, introduced his paper ‘A world class start to life for Children and Young People in Surrey’  explaining his approach.

It was an impressive account, and I’ll just give you some of the more striking quotes from my notes:

“We’ve got a bit of a challenge [with a] savings target of £29 Million … quite likely may need to achieve more … you can’t salami slice the way we do our business to take off £20 million, you have to re-design it. … [We’ve had] at least 20 years of tinkering … focussing on processes and structure and not outcomes … [this is] an opportunity to say what sort of services do we want for the children and young people in Surrey?”

” … we will need to be incredibly brave … if you agree with the approach we will then need to go away and develop the thinking behind it … ”

Defending the ubiquitous term ‘world class’: ” … [I’m] happy with ‘world class’ - why shouldn’t [life for] children in Surrey be as good as anywhere in the world?”  We need to ask: “if you’re a child growing up on the edge of an urban area anywhere in the world … is it any different than in Surrey … if it’s better, we should be doing that … [but it] has to be world class for everybody … [and not] only focussing on the top end.”

Localisation, targetting, and investment in preventive services were key - see his paper for more - but there was no disguising the difficulty of getting from here to there: “That’s the strategy … [the] plan gets a bit more difficult becuase cuts [are needed] for next year - that’s going to be a lot tougher … at the moment we don’t know the detail around that … [but you] don’t take millions of pounds out of services without cutting them.”

The unusual red road surface at Knaphill was a dressing intended both to lengthen the life of the road and to brighten up the village centre. It was paid for with ‘planning gain’ money after Sainsburys came to Knaphill.

The road is now badly worn and pot-holed, with the red emphasising the delapidation. I have named it as one of the three worst roads in my Division for the last few years, which helps by giving it priority points when Surrey decided what they can afford to do in the next year.

The good news is that prioritised lists for major maintenance throughout the County now show Knaphill High Street high enough up that if funding remains the same as last year it could be done in 2010 - 2011.

The possibly less good news is that there will only be funding for an ordinary black surface, with a faint possibility - if it’s really wanted and money can be found - of a red strip marking the entry to the village.

I’ve also had pointed out to me by a resident that we also need at least part of the Broadway resurfaced at the same time, since it shares the same now-faulty surface.

What do you think on these points?

My other nominated roads were Lockfield Drive from Amstel Way to Littlewick Road, and Oak Tree Road, Knaphill. (apologies for earlier mistyping of Oakfield Road)

Oakfield Road is now within striking distance of resurfacing - if there was more money next year than last it should be in, but don’t hold your breath, it’s not an election year!

Repair to that part of Lockfield Drive is still out of sight.

As I said earlier, these have been my ‘three worst roads’ for several years. If one of them now gets repaired, what’s the next worst to nominate when I’m asked again?

(ps on road markings - parking restrictions, white lines, the yellow zigzags at zebra crossings: these are now so bad that the police often can’t enforce them even when the want to. I have been told that they should be renewed by the end of November. We will see. Or not, as the case may be.)

Thursday’s meeting of SCC’s Local Committee for Woking, mainly but not exclusively looking at transport issues, had an agenda packed with with items of local significance - more than I can easily report back on, so I’ll concentrate on those most closely concerning my own Division, Knaphill and Goldsworth West.

• Should Warbury Lane stop being a through road for traffic?
• Road Markings Real Soon Now, Honest.
• Community Safety and where to find local crime statistics
• Shared bicycle and pedestrian use routes
• Overspends on road crossings - Redding Way an egregious case.
• A (not posh) Duck Island for Goldworth Lake and money for The Cabin 

Warbury Lane

Warbury Lane links the Chobham Road in Knaphill with Church Lane in Bisley, and from there gives a back route to the A322 Bagshot Road. The last section of it is single track, running between high banks. This part is one-way, and the speed and width of traffic is supposed to be controlled by bollards. If you dare to walk up there - it feels dangerous to do so, and I can’t imagine doing it with a child’s buggy or in a wheelchair - you’ll see that every set of bollards has been broken to one side by the traffic, which at many times of day goes by in a steady stream.

It doesn’t help that despite repeated requests and discussions Surrey County Council seems to be totally incapable of maintaining this road properly. The bollards are always broken, the road markings have remained unclear, vegetation not cut back, signs not replaced.

There was a petition put to the committee by Mrs. Sandra Manton, whose home is at the bottom of the road in the two way section, and Will Ebdon, from the Bisley end. It said that since the new roundabout was built at Bisley Green the situation had got worse, there had been a number of accidents, and that it was impossible for local families to use the roads safely. The solution they asked for was the closure of Warbury Lane (so that there was no through motor traffic). I think this would probably be the cheapest and easiest solution to the problem.

But while these campaigners had been gathering support, an even stronger (in terms of numbers) counter campaign, led by Pauline Marshall, saw a second petition brought to the same meeting, simply asking that Warbury Lane should not be closed, either temporarily or permanently.

There is certainly a feeling around that the route is too convenient to lose - one Councillor’s response, when I talked to them about it earlier this summer was ‘ … but you can’t do that. I use it!’

But in fairness, the argument made was not just that this is a handy back route, but also that it would throw a lot of traffic onto the Chobham Road. Chobham Road and Barrs Lane are already used as an unofficial Knaphill by-pass. Residents from the roads feeding onto it were concerned about their safety using Chobham Road, and the possibility of traffic building up at the Garibaldi Crossroads.

The process to make a change such as to close a road is a long and complex one, especially when - as here - it falls right on the boundary of Woking and Surrey Heath, so that the local committees for both areas would have to agree. The first step would be to look at all the options for the problem, and if the decision was made to go ahead,there would first be a temporary closure while the effect on traffic on the local roads would be assessed.

I put forward a proposal for how to move forward from here, and it was agreed:

     - some repairs should be done immediately;

      - the importance of doing new work on Warbury Lane should be put into the ‘pool’ with other schemes to see where it rates on a cost-benefit comparison.

     - if that assessment does not mean Warbury Lane gets something done by the end of the next financial year, all the measures that are supposed to in place now but are actually useless because of lack of maintainance should be restored, including effective bollards / width restrictors.

     - we need to tell Surrey Heath about the situation.

Faded Road Markings becoming unenforceable 

For the last year at least it has seemed  impossible to get road markings refreshed or changed, however many times I or the residents directly concerned complain. Even when (as Ross Daniels, a Knaphill resident,  established) white lines are so faint on the zigzag lines by crossings that police are unable to prosecute or fine motorists parking on the lines; or when a residents drive is covered by a school ‘no-parking’ box; or faint white lines are contributing the the difficulty of stopping thoughtless parking on a disabled parking bay.

Our Highways Manager says that everything currently on the list should be finished by the end of November.

Stephen Child, one step up as Group Manager, was at the meeting with the Annual Highway Maintenance plan, so I asked him why there had been such a problem? He said that all the money had been spent on re-surfacing.

(A bit sad really, given the state of our road surfaces.)

One of the Councillors from the Byfleet area said that all his roads had now been nicely re-white-lined. So perhaps the programme really is under way now and will reach us in the West soon. I don’t think the residents who have been affected by this for so many months will be holding their breath.

Community Safety

Interesting information about various schemes and strategies to control and reduce crime in Woking  (and a disappointing reports on the ‘resource heavy’ Tune In’ meetings held in every area, including Goldworth Park and Knaphill, but which there are no plans to repeat.)We were given less detailed crime figures than in previous years, and I queried this. 

After the meeting I was given directions to the Surrey Police website where through the maps link you can get Knaphill / Brookwood and Goldworth Park   crime figures, broken up into types if you want - for example, in Knaphill and Brookwood, incidents of antisocial incidents are currently down 40.7% compared with the same period past year.

Cycles and Pedestrians together

Although it I personally like being able to ride through Town Square, a number of people are concerned about the introduction of legal ’shared use’ areas in the town centre between pedestrians and cyclists.  

This will come up for discussion and decision in the summer, when the we’re further into the present trial.

At this weeks meeting we approved some more ’shared use’ routes which I hope will be less controversial, creating routes for bicycles alongside pedestrians on some paths where there is enough width.

For example, there’ll be a ‘cycle link’along the Hermitage Road from the roundabout at the junction with Redding Way and Lower Guildford Road, leading up to the Winston Churchill School (plan here)

The cycle trail through the Country Park is already a huge improvement on the muddy trail children were using to get to school, and this additional off-road provision will make it much easier for parents to be happy with the idea of children bicycling to the school along this accident-infested road.

Proud of the crossings, alarmed by the overspends - eg Redding Way

- that sums up my feelings about item 10, where our current temporary Local Highways Manager did as he was asked at the last Local Committee meeting and went back to look at the reasons for an overspend of £127,600 in 2008/9, which is being clawed back from the present year’s budget.

Four of the six most overspending schemes were ones in my division. The worst on paper is ’Redding Way pedestrian facilities’ which were originally budgeted at £6,000 just to finish off the job started the year before, and ended up costing £45,482, £39,000 over budget.

If you’ve lived in Knaphill for a couple of years you’ll remember the shameful weeks and weeks of delays in getting the much-needed crossings of Redding Way and the Broadway commissioned. One of Surrey’s Highways Engineers (now retired) had done a great job of working out where crossing points were most needed, which expanded the scheme beyond the initial idea of one crossing by the Vyne. But to add to the frustrating and even dangerous delays as one way and another the various contractors failed to work together to finish the job, we now have some idea of how many thousands of pounds extra taxpayers were handing them while they did so.

The other five big overspenders - Victoria Road/Lower Guildford Road; Anchor Hill pedestrian facilities; Sheerwater Road Pedestrian facilities; Denton Way Pedestrian crossing, and Westfield Road Pedestrian Crossing - all had comparable problems, with the letters ‘EDF’ turning up more frequently than the company ought to like. The details are here , but it’s a pdf so I can’t take you to the best bit of the document - go down to Annex A on page five for the nitty-gritty detail.

According to para 2.12 you’ll see it’s all been better since this April. “The previous ‘at cost’ elements have now been removed and now all scheme costs are agreed up front prior to placing orders. Task teams meet throughout scheme develoments and will develop the parameters for costing schemes. Therefore, orders should not be placed until all costs are agreed. The cost of a job will vary depending on timescales and any agreed risk, accepted by either Surrey Highways or the Contractor”.

Wonderful. Why didn’t we think of it before?

Money for local activities - eg ‘The Cabin’ and a floating island

There is a ‘Local Allocation’ of £57,750 revenue, £35,000 capital, calculated according to the number of County Councillors representing Woking. We’re meant to use our local knowledge to find community projects or organisations to support. 

This time, I was delighted to be able to get £1,996 to support ‘The Cabin’, which is the new name for the Knaphill Youth Cafe at the Vyne on monday evenings, and £3,650 funding for an ‘interpretation board’ and a ’six metre floating island’ to go on Golddsworth Park Lake, as a safe area for nesting birds. (I remember we did have one long ago, before part of the bank was fenced off instead. We even had some swans nesting. But then it seemed to fall into disrepair.)

Other grants went to Woking Hockey Club for new goals and team shelters; a ’sail shade’ for West Byfleet Infant school; to support workshops run as part of Woking Dance Festival - and so on …

If you’re organising something useful for people in Surrey and need a relatively small bit of one-off funding to get off the ground,  try talking to your County Councillor. If they agree to support you, there is a relatively simple form to fill in. Alternatively the Local Partnership team can help you check out whether your idea would meet the criteria, and suggest which Councillor you should approach.

If by any chance you’ve dropped in looking for last night’s Local Committee meeting, I’ll get to that tomorrow! I sometimes think it would be better to blog quickly rather than give a neat account - I’ve  rather missed the boat now to tell you about Full Council on 13th October.  Fortunately Peter Lambell (here) has written about the Conservatives refusal even to debate the 10:10 campaign, which would have committed Surrey to reducing its own CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010, while Will Forster has written here about the part of the ‘Leader’s Report’ saying Surrey staff shouldn’t expect a pay-rise this year.(Povey: ‘SCC will do its utmost to avoid redundancy … pay freeze for at least one year … jobs are more important than minimal rises in pay …’ ) He’s also covered the three motions that were put in to debate where we should go with the Frater report. No prizes for guessing which party put in the one that got passed.

So that just leaves me with some of the fun bits -

Value for money? - barely, and that’s official

It felt as if there was a neat irony in Dr. Povey near the start of the meeting and at the top of his report saying ‘This administration will be about value for money for the people of Surrey’, and the information that the External Auditor, working in the Audit Commission’s framework, gave Surrey County Council only a 2 (meeting minimal requirements) for Managing finances, Governing the business, and managing resources, with only a 1 (a fail) for the ‘good governance sub-theme’.  

This was in the Annual Governance Statement from the Audit and Governance Committee, which came last but one on the agenda, when numbers had thinned out and enthusiasm for debate been blunted by the lunch.

The Basingstoke Canal and fears of failure

This isn’t really a fun bit. I have been alarmed for some time as a member of the Joint Managment Committtee of the Basingstoke Canal how often we hear about dangers that seem to be accepted as a fact of life that we just have a little moan about, but don’t make too much fuss. At the last meeting the Canal Director said in reply to a question on his report about risks of harm to people and property of the sort that would come about through a canal breach that ‘we are now moving into unacceptable areas’, and I quoted this in a question to to the Cabinet Member. Her reply pointed out that a major survey of the canal’s condition will come to the two councils that own it, Surrey and Hampshire, ‘early in 2010′, and that in the past these Councils have paid for major structural repairs out of their capital budgets, rather than expecting the Canal’s annual budget to cover it. She would not be drawn on whether Surrey would draw on its capital reserves if necessary to fund repair, but spoke of ways of letting the canal earn money.

However I think the second depends on the first - there are a lot of canal enthusiasts who would pay to use the canal if it could be opened frequently and predictably. There would also be benefits to the local economy. But this needs the investment to start with - and leaving the canal literally to rot isn’t really an option, given the dangers involved, the function it fulfils for drainage, and its status as an SSSI 

Stars of the small screen next …

“Technicalities permitting”, Dr. Povey says we’ll have webcasting of all County Council meetings next January. Whether this means Committees as well, I don’t know.  So when watching Parliament becomes too exciting you can turn to nice, cosy SCC for entertainment. I’ll have to be even more careful to get my quotes right, with everything on the record. And you’ll be able to check out whether you’re getting value for money from the Chairman and Vice Chairman’s dress allowances.

No more alcohol during working hours

Some good news on the not-wasting-taxpayers-money-on-perks front: SCC is going to follow the example of most large business organisations in the 21st century and not allow alcohol during working hours.

I checked with a Cabinet member later on, and yes, this does mean no more wine at formal County Council lunches, and no more sherry with the Chairman even for the select few.

Gosh! maybe this administration really is different!

Schools and Learning - 15th October

I’ve already written about the Sschool Organisation Plan (see posting lower down)  but I took the opportunity to ask PJ Wilkinson, the lead Officer, about Kingfield school in South Woking.The recommendation to make this infant school inito a through primary school, going on to year 6, still depends on ’significant extra funding’ which has not been finally agreed. Mr. Wilkinson said he would be advising parents that they must fill in applications for other schools, but he will be getting back in touch with them later in the year if the option of staying on at Kingfield is going to be available.

Clearly the whole situation needs to be resolved before places are finally allocated, and after the meeting I heard that at least one local school that normally takes children from Kingfield is concerned about what its numbers will look like - but since the problem stems from a need for extra school places, this should be resolvable.

The Committee also had to recommend to the Cabinet what admissions criteria should go out to consultation for the year 2010/11. We duly agreed pretty much the same criteria as last year, except with a loosening of the sibling criterion so that an older sibling, not just a younger sibling, can get priority if they already have a brother or sister in a school.This is expected to have the most effect on families moving into a new area.  

There was also a very good and full account of the Special Needs Strategy, which you might like to look at if you have a particular interest in the subject. 

Children and Families Committee - 21 October

This week’s Children and Families committee had a less heavy agenda than I remember for a long time - and, perversely, was less well attended with a sufficient number of members simply not turning up that even the table in the relatively small Committee Room C felt over-large. It was still a worthwhile meeting, with what I thought was a significant report from the Surrey Children’s Services Improvement Board. For the first time since last spring it was possible for someone outside senior management or the ruling party to a systematic run-down on what progress was being made on the issues that had been brought into sharp focus at that time. I found tracking appendix 3 (the improvement notice report) against Appendix 2 (the text of the improvement notice) particularly interesting. But at the committee meeting there was a surprising reluctance on the part of the Officer presenting the SCC report to agree that the Committee should regularly see the Improvement Board reports, even though to some extent the Improvement Board is doing the job of scrutiny that otherwise would have to be covered by this Committee.

The prevarication was such that I’m still not sure we’ll get them. But as was pointed out to me by another Officer after the meeting, there’s always the Freedom of Information act. Which is OK when you know what you don’t know.

One member of the Committee present and making a serious contribution to the discussion was Nick Skellett, Leader of the Council up until last year, and the person to whom the Improvement Notice was originally addressed. I think it’s rather brave and determined of him to have joined this Committee, and look forward to hearing what he says - especially if he proves to be a bit of a gamekeeper turned poacher when it comes to asking knowledgable questions.

That doesn’t look a very exciting headline, but for anyone in Surrey involved with school applications as a parent, as a Governor, or as part of school management, there is significant information to be got from the School Organisation Plan 2010 - 2019 coming the the Schools and Learning Committee this Thursday 15th October for discussion.

 If can be found here on the SCC website, conveniently divided into separate files, including one for each Borough or District.

 Details for applications for Surrey schools in terms of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place choices can be found among them by going down a page or two in the pdf here . (But as you go to them, spare a glance at the projections for increased numbers of pupils in Surrey schools going forward)

As the introduction to the report says, this ‘data showing the popularity of individual schools’should be ‘used with care’; but this ’snapshot’ has a number of good potentially good uses.

It shows me, for example, that at the school where I am a Governor we will have filled 24 of our 30 places with first-choice applicants, but leaving six with parents who we will have to work especially hard not to disappoint. I can also see which local schools those disappointed parents are likely to have preferred.

If I were parent looking to select a school for my child for 2010, it might help me work out which three schools I put down, though with the ‘equal preference’ system the order you put the schools down it doesn’t change your likelihood of getting a place at each of those schools.  

Borough and District information is in the file marked with its name. For instance Woking (here) gives background figures, describes what happened this year in terms of increased numbers of applications at primary level and how they were accomodated, and draws out the following implications for Woking Borough: 

• On projected birth rates three additional forms of entry are likely to be needed for 2011 
• There is a mismatch between junior and infant school places in South Woking that means Kingfield School should be expanded into being a primary school going through from reception to year 6.
• An additional reception class is likely to be needed in 2010 to meet increased need in the Knaphill/Goldsworth Park/Horsell areas.

This will probably be of little interest unless you live in my area - but if you do, and you’re involved with local schools, this is serious enough that my bet is you’ll already have stopped reading this to get the link to the full document…

There is equally detailed information in The School Organisation Plan for every Borough and District in Surrey. 

There were too many interesting items at last week’s Schools and Learning committee meeting to do them all justice. At the end came a paper re-stating the already decided policy of re-shaping of

The paper was presented by Garath Symonds, Assistant Director for Young People (Head of Services for Young People). It says the ‘key aim’ for Surrey’s Youth Services is to ‘increase the employability ofSurrey young people, particularly the most vulnerable.’ Garath explained to us that he had been in post for only six months, with a ‘mandate … of change’, and that in discussion with the new Conservative leader it seemed that  ‘economic well being and perhaps even wealth creation was a good vision for Surrey’ with an emphasis on correcting ‘negative outcomes’ that would get in the way of this.

He was also careful express the financial concerns currently driving Surrey’s decisions - especially the risk that as a ‘floor’ authority already getting more than our fair share under the current formula that works out how tax money comes back to local areas, we might actually have money taken away from us. 

But a less Dickensian view came bubbling through as his presentation continued. ‘Healthy, active people are employable,’ he said; young people that were happy, involved in sport, interested in the world; somewhere down the road perhaps with a degree, qualifications, a well-written CV, but ‘employability is much more than that … much more about being a whole person.’

As I constantly repeat, Surrey does have a responsibility for making ensuring there is a ‘Youth Offer’ of universal services, even if it cannot provide them itself, and should be working more closely with other organisations including Borough Councils.

The Council Leader has already committed himself to allowing plans for the Youth Services to be approved by Surrey’s Local Committees. Garath said he would be ‘going to every Local Committee in the fourth quarter of this year’ to discuss the local Youth Offer. The ‘vision’ given to us was that each Local Committees would have a pot of money for Youth Services and a ‘menu’ to choose from, and he commented that they were starting with Woking, because of the amount and type of information available here to ‘model up the plan’. One problem, as Garath Symonds said, is ‘what am I going to do if they [the Local Committees] say no to me?’   

What’s being talked about is a radical change in how Youth Services are delivered, and a good result will need a creative consensus, with Surrey County Council acting increasingly as a commissioner and enabler rather than supplier of services. Moreover ‘Commissioning is how we can meet the localism agenda’, according to Garath.    

I could not say anything about the private meeting held by the Local Committee earlier that week, except that my questions were informed by it: ie when would he be in contact with Chairs of Local Committees and Local Directors to make sure that this goes on the forward programme earlier enough for there realistically to be time for proper discussion? And, indeed, to sort out how the Borough Councillors will be involved.    

Normally Borough Councillors can speak on non-transport items, but not vote. I imagine it will be the same here, at least initially; but the less well informed in advance we all are in advance the more unconstructive and disappointing discussion is likely to be - which would be a pity, since a very similar presentation given by Garath to Woking Borough Council seemed to attract close attention and a number of interested questions.                                                                                                      

I’ve just heard that Arriva are arranging a bus service on school-day mornings for Woking High pupils from Knaphill and Goldsworth Park, which will complement their remaining home-coming service.

They’re doing this by extending the 134, from Camberley to Guildford via
Knaphill, Littlewick Road, Horsell and Woking  along the ”old” 28 bus route between Knaphill and Horsell High Street via Goldsworth Park.

It will leave the Waitrose stop at 8.00 am, and reach Horsell a bit earlier than the previous 28 bus did, giving more time for pupils to walk up to the school. This will happen from the 5th of October

This is likely to be another use-it-or-lose-it situation - Arriva are not getting a subsidy from Surrey to run this service.

 By co-incidence, I picked up today the papers for the (Surrey) Cabinet meeting on the 29th of September. Two are about potentially severe reductions in bus services that Liberal Democrats predicted before the recent elections (we were not ’crying wolf’):

1. Proposed Review of Local Bus Services in Surrey 

My synopsis: three main options are discussed. 

a) Do nothing so that no change in services seen by the public. This will become increasingly and untenably expensive. 

b) ’Fundamental redesign’, cutting subsidies and services radically.

c) A less extreme ‘redesign’ only slightly reducing subsidies, but still meaning many fewer people benefit than at present.

Options to be looked at on school services include removing some or all subsidies. Surrey is still left with transporting children entitled for free school transport, eg because of special educational needs, or because of the distance they live from the school (though this entitlement depends on circumstances.)

The officers recommend consultation as the next step, though the first reduction in subsidy in Woking and four other boroughs could come in September 2010.  

2. ‘Ride Pegasus’ Pilot School Bus Service

My synopsis: 840 children at 14 primary schools in Guildford have been the beneficiaries of the ‘Ride Pegasus’ school bus scheme - a fleet of 22 buses running USA - style to transport children between home to school. Children over 8 pay £1.80 a day, and under 8 £1.30. The service costs £900,000 net a year, and the economic rate per day would be £8. The five-year pilot should end in December 2010, but it would be possible to end the contract early.

On the plus side it carries 147 children entitled to free travel; it’s very popular and there are waiting lists; it should be reducing car traffic on the ’school run’ (though it caters for only 18% of children in the 14 schools.)

While formulating options, the paper says: ‘The possibility of the service running indefinitely has not been included on the grounds that the level of subsidy required is not sustainable in the current financial climate.’

This seems a fair analysis to me, given that it would be inequitable to run a service for this small group of pupils for ever, and not extend it to the whole of Surrey for everyone who wants it.  And at over £1,000 p.a. per pupil that would be a serious cost.

The question is not if ‘Ride Pegasus’ will stop, but how soon, how soft can the fall be made for parents, and what will happen to the fleet of buses? - can something positive be rescued?

It’s more than a year now since the ‘Joint Area Review’ showed appalling gaps in Surrey’s Children’s Social Services, especially in safeguarding children. We’re now coming to the end of the first year in a two-year improvement plan monitored closely by the government. The first ‘milestone’ was March, and another review point is the end of September.

This summer there was an unannounced two-day Ofsted inspection of the ‘contact, referral and assessment arrangements’ for children who might be at risk of harm. It took place on the 19^th and 20^th of August. No-one at Surrey knew the dates in advance; even Caroline Budden, the new Head of Children’s Services, who was on holiday at the time. The five inspectors looked at more than fifty files, and observed staff at work.

The resulting three-page ‘snapshot’ report (here) has only just been published, and information embargoed until last Friday.

Happily, given the severity of earlier findings and the amount of work put in since then, the inspectors were generally pleased. It confirmed ‘remedial changes implemented by the council have impacted quickly and positively in raising standards of practice within children’s front line services.’ The professionalism of staff is a ‘strength’, while front-line staff felt more supported and ‘listened-to.’

There were down-sides. 

• Some cases being closed too soon, before all the services needed for the child were in place, but nothing serious enough to become an ‘area for priority action’.

• One area office (left unnamed) is not yet up to standard.

• Access to services is still not consistent

It’s good news this expert ‘spot check’ has confirmed some of the big improvements that are being reported to Councillors. There is still another year of the Improvement Plan to run, and there will be more inspections along the way. I am concerned about the idea that some cases may have been closed before other support was fully in place, especially since preventative services work with families are not as strong as they should be. Social Worker recruitment and staff stability have not stopped being problems. Dissatisfied parents and unhappy families exist.

Nevertheless, congratulations to the staff who have made it possible for Surrey to significantly reduce the likelihood of bad practice getting in the way of stopping serious child abuse.