Following the damning Ofsted review of Surrey County Council’s services for vulnerable children (see the previous news item) the Lib Dem group of councillors called on the Tory Leader of the Council to resign.

One of the key issues highlighted was the inadequate provision of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks - a national requirement for anyone working with children and young people. The report stated: “Although the council state in their self-assessment that all staff are robustly CRB checked, this information is false, with high numbers of staff identified by the human resources database as either not having had CRB checks or three yearly re-checks.”

In addition it was found that too many children with learning difficulties and/or disabilities are excluded from school. In 2006, in mainstream secondary schools, nearly half the children with statements of Special Educational Needs had fixed term exclusions.

We Lib Dems have consistently campaigned for more services to support families and keep children from needing to be brought into care; for more effective recruitment and retention of key staff; and to ensure that schools are helped to keep children with Special Educational Needs in school. But it has taken a Government Inspection to bring out the lack of CRB checks, the failure to respond to children’s needs early enough in the care process, and the failure to keep proper records.

The Inspectors also reported that the Tories’ 2006 Business Delivery Review harmed important service developments in children’s social care.

Many of the underlying problems highlighted in the report such as lack of respite care, too much reliance on agency staff and a limited range of preventative services, have been known for years. Yet the Conservative administration had failed to act and even the Executive’s action plan in response to this highly critical report is vague and woolly.

The Lib Dem group agrees with the Inspectors that the council’s leadership demonstrates a belated and incomplete response to some critical county-wide challenges. We can have no confidence in this Tory administration. It is a shame that Nick Skellett, the Conservative Leader of Surrey County Council throughout the period leading up to this report, did not resign as soon as the news broke.

Given that this is an Executive-run council, the Executive must be held responsible for these failures. The ultimate responsibility must rest with the Leader of the Council and that’s why we called on him to do the honourable thing and resign.

A Joint Area Review of Surrey and its partners’ Children’ Services, published by Ofsted this July, highlights shocking failures to keep children safe and to meet the needs of young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

Lib Dem Spokesperson County Councillor Diana Smith has stated that whilst Surrey County Council boasts that its education service is first class and services to children once they are actually in care are good, if Surrey was a school the Ofsted report should put it into “special measures”.

Direct quotations from the main findings of the report are :

• ” safeguarding is inadequate”

• “there is an inadequate range of services for those children and young people who have a high level of need but who do not meet thresholds for child protection”

• “there are inadequate arrangements to ensure safe staffing”

• “the contribution of local services to improving outcomes for children and young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities is inadequate”

• “services to meet health needs are inadequate”

• “Surrey is not on target to halve the rate of teenage pregnancy by 2010 and the overall impact of the strategy is inadequate”

• ” targeted service delivery for vulnerable groups is inadequate”

• “capacity to improve is inadequate”

When the SCC Lib Dem group called for more opportunities for the pubic to get involved in Local Democracy recently, all their suggestions were opposed by the ruling Conservative administration – despite being based on the Council’s own survey of public opinion.

I had the job of proposing the Lib Dem motion calling on SCC to involve more Surrey residents in the decision-making process. This motion was prompted by the Council’s 2007 Community Survey published last year and presented to the Executive this April 2008, which shows that only 3 in 10 respondents believed they could influence decisions affecting their local area. More than a quarter would also like to be more involved in the decisions the Council takes.

As councillors, we’re elected to represent the interests and concerns of residents. Our job is to look in the horse’s mouth - in other words to concentrate on areas of dissatisfaction and make changes accordingly.

The Lib Dem proposals included improving the way the Council consults residents, promoting the Local Committees and the work of local councillors more effectively and providing fuller information so residents can contact all councillors.

A key issue, which we also raised when this Council was first elected, back in 2005, was a call for Surrey residents to be able to petition Full Council. At the moment, the only places the public can ask direct questions or present petitions are at Executive, Select Committee or Local Committee meetings. Some members of the public do attend these meetings and ask questions, but not many.

Would you, as a member of the public, want to take time off and travel up to Kingston just to get a prepared answer from an Executive, made up of just 10 members out of 80, all from one party - and in all probability the very people against whose decision your petition is appealing? Wouldn’t you be more likely to engage if you could present your petition to the whole council?

Our request to allow the public to petition Full Council was turned down back in 2005 and sadly, it was turned down again, along with all our other proposals.

This week we debated Surrey County Council’s 2007 Community Survey, which reveals that:

• Only 3 in 10 respondents believe that they can influence decisions affecting their local area.
• People who feel able to influence decisions are more likely to be satisfied with the way SCC runs things.
• A quarter would like to be more involved in decisions and another quarter said it depended on the issue.
• Less than 1 in 6 had heard of SCC’s Local Committees.

I pointed out that if we are to do anything effective about publicising Local Committees before next June, we need to take action now.

The Tories on the Executive had agreed to provide residents with information on how they can have a say in the local decision making process. Yet they failed to mention Local Committees, despite the Survey revealing that less than one person in six had heard of them.

I proposed that instead the council should promote the work of Local Committees more effectively.

At one time there were Press Officers promoting Local Committees. Now some Local Committees have had to divert money from their allocations just to advertise the dates and venues for their meetings and take “pot luck” on subsequent press coverage.

Yet Local Committees are the best things this Council does to engage and involve local people. SCC ought to build on success, not strangle it by cutting the numbers of meetings.

I added that the PR department should be publicising the outcomes of the meetings, as well as the dates and venues. Of course the Tories voted through an amendment emasculating the whole motion, though it did take a step forward by mentioning Local Committees in passing.

Ironically, on the very same day, the county’s PR department did issue an excellent Press Release about the Runnymede Local Committee – one with no Lib Dem members.

It was revealed at the June Local Committee that the student flats on the old Lintons Lane School site may not be built after all. It seems that the developer is negotiating with Surrey County Council to move the youth centre, either elsewhere on the site or off the site altogether. It is understood that the aim is to build retirement flats.

This follows on earlier news that the youth centre had been deprived of heating. I pointed out that retaining this important Youth facility is included in the current Local Plan and expressed the hope that it will also be protected in the new one.

A couple of hours were whiled away yesterday afternoon at Bourne Hall, Ewell as part of a team of County Councillors standing by to answer questions from the public about Council Tax.

Meetings all over the county have been set up and advertised under the title of “Council Tax Unwrapped”, with posters displayed in local Libraries carrying our mugshots.

All in vain - the public didn’t turn up!