Action overdue to combat child poverty and health inequality in Reading

Get Reading today carries an article based on this year's Annual Health Profile which shows that public health in Reading continues to be significantly worse than other parts of the UK and health inequality continues to be a major issue.

This is not news but the fact that health inequality is still such a major issue should concern all of us.

Locally I have led calls for action by both Reading Borough Council and local health partners to close the gap - and in particular do more to reduce the impact poverty is having on children's health.

Two years ago I co-chaired a cross-party scrutiny review into this issue with Cllr Mark Ralph (Conservative) which made a series of recommendations to Labour councillors.

Our review reported just ahead of the General Election and disgracefully some Labour councillors
tried to use it as a political football - no doubt in an attempt to deflect attention from their failings in office.

The new Labour Lead Councillor, Cllr Tickner is pledging to take a hard look at the issue - which is very welcome.

Sadly, the new Labour administration has already signalled that tackling child poverty is not a priority and Cllr Tickner herself led plans to divert funding away from helping charities support children in poverty to community cohesion.

I really hope that as they become more familiar with the facts about the reality of child poverty in Reading  Labour councillors will change their minds and resolve to take action.

The Coalition Government is restoring powers and responsibility for improving public health back to councils - a move not seen since the Victorian era.

For the first time councils will receive funding to improve public health in their area - according to level of health need.

So far Labour councillors have spoken out against every aspect of proposed health reforms.

When it comes to something as important as  public health I really hope Cllr Tickner and her colleagues will feel able to put politics to one side and use new powers and new funding to fight poverty and the impact it has on health of children and adults across Reading.

Reading Labour's Political Priorities

Labour councillors were keen to point out to those of us in attendance at Cabinet on Monday that they had different, superior, priorities from the previous Lib Dem - Conservative Coalition administration of the Council.

We were given a steer about Labour's priorities at the June Cabinet meeting but Monday evening's meeting was where the rubber hit the road, so to speak and smoke began to clear about what Labour priorities will really mean for residents.

And, as laudable and popular as many Labour priorities may seem - and some of them we are very happy to support - the reality is that for the residents of  Reading the effects of reorganising the Council's budget to reflect some of them are far from benign.

On Monday, the phrase that fo me defined the evening came from the Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Tony Page:

"We won, you lost!"

He repeated this at least three times in the evening.

So much for an and to Punch and Judy politics signalled by the Leader of the Council, Cllr Lovelock at the last meeting.

But why is Cllr Page's outburst important?

Because it tells you all you need to know about the thinking behind all Labour's decisions in power.

For Labour, regardless of the subject under discussion - whether it is community cohesion, free schools, social care -  everything is political.

For Readng Labour Party every decision boils down to satisfying particular interest groups or groups of voters.

Ensuring that these groups or individuals are not disadvantaged by any decisions lies behind every decision Labour councillors take.

And if you are not in Labour's list by virtue of your background, location or voting habits you will not benefit.

To give Labour credit this is a highly effective politicial strategy.

But what it is not  is a recipe for good, ethical government.

And it is in fact very bad news for taxpayers and everyone who relies on Council services.

Turning to Cabinet, what did we learn from Monday evening's exchanges about Labour's real political priorities?

1. Reducing child poverty is not a priority for a Labour administration

Read documents about Labour's priorities for the year and you will not see child poverty identified anywhere as an issue that needs to be addressed.

On Monday Labour councillors did not bat an eye lid when public money previously ear marked for tackling child poverty was 'reallocated' towards funding Reading Council for Racial Equality and a vague notion improving community cohesion.

Improving community cohesion and promoting equality is one thing but why do other areas of Council activity have to suffer in order to deliver it?

The fact is the number of children living in poverty rising to one quarter when Reading had a Labour government and a Labour Council.

Last December, one of Reading Borough Council's longest-serving Labour councillors Cllr Mike Orton, who represents one of the most deprived wards in Reading said he was horrified at the levels of child poverty in our area.

And yet, he along with his Labour Cabinet colleagues agreed to this dreadful cut.

I questioned this decision and was roundly attacked by Labour councillors in the meeting.

This latest decision however follows a clear pattern of spending by Labour.

They have a long history of spending large amounts of public money on projects and areas where spending is not tied to any particular outcomes or objectives.

Lack of transparency over decision-making in the Council before has made this hard to question but recent development led by Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors have made Labour's ability to avoid public scrutiny much more difficult.

Furthermore, Labour may have got away with throwing good money after bad in in the past but at a time when all public spending is being reduced their approach looks reckless.

Nationally, the Coalition Government has signalled that cutting child poverty is a priority with the publication of a Child Poverty Strategy, increased early intervention and improvements to years education, and the launch of the Pupil Premimum which will see spending on the poorest children in Reading rise significantly.

2. Labour councillors are in favour redistribution of wealth: from those on low or middle incomes to those on high incomes:

Labour's Cabinet approved plans for Council Taxpayers to foot 70% of the bill for people with savings over the minimum threshold to attend day centres. I am aware of at least one case of someone with in excess of £100,000 savings who will benefit from this - part of Labour's pre-election bribes.

This generous move (who wouldn't want to introduce it?) will set the Council back £123k adding more pressure to the Social Care budget which is already facing in-year demand pressures of just under £400k through demand pressures alone.

Labour councillors also agreed to scrap Green Waste charges and revert to a situation where thousands of people with no gardens will subsidise residents who do. This move will add £180k to this year's budget.

Labour councillors rejected a proposal put forward by officers whereby people on low incomes should get concessions on the charge preferring to introduce a scheme whereby some of Reading's wealthiest residents will be subsidised to get free collections by some of the town's poorest Council Tax payers on low and fixed incomes.

3. Arts , Parks and Planning are not priorities for the Labour administration:

On Monday we learned that Labour's free green waste election pledge will be funded by:

• 70k from Cultural Head of Service staffing budget
• £40k from restructure of Cultural Services
• £30k from Parks and ground maintenance efficiencies and seasonal maintenance
• £30k from Planning Delivery Grant
• £10k from Joint Strategic Planning Unit

These cuts were tabled at short notice at Cabinet making detailed pre-scrutiny by opposition councillors impossible.

To suggest these cuts will not affect front-line services is laughable given we know they involve job losses and reductions in services.

4. Labour have no plans to bring back their 'gold standard' concessionary fares scheme.

Labour councillors pledged to reinstate concessionary fares only for people with Access Passes (5,000 residents) - funded through a one off £65k windfall to the Council's coffers via Bus Lane fines, something we are happy to support and something we would have done had the money been available.

Labour made clear they have no plans to reinstate concessionary fares for the 30,000 or so pensioners.

This would cost the Council £300k.

5. Labour's idea of consultation: agree consultation behind closed doors first

The Lead Councillor described as 'politically neutral' a letter that was circulated by a Labour councillor to residents before Cabinet had even met to agree a public consultation should take place on the issue.

Is this what Labour councillors mean by 'a fair, open and transparent process' to consultation as set out in their Priorities for the year at June Cabinet meeting?

6. Labour councillors have no idea how much their pre-election pledges on changes to Residents Parking will cost.

When we took control of the Council last May, Labour's Residents Parking Scheme was running a deficit of £300k.

Labour are reviewing the new scheme but made no promises about delivering any changes.

A report will be brought forward to September Cabinet about the financial impact of Labour's planned changes to the scheme.

7. Labour's approach to promoting community cohesion and equality under the microscope

Despite an independent review of their own community cohesion policies  in 2007 which identified a number of flaws in the Council's approach to promoting equality (including LGBT equality) Labour councillors are only now getting round to promoting the full range of equalities.

Labour councillors have agreed to fund RCRE by a further £45,000 on 'a defined piece of work to be agreed with the Head of Policy, Performance and Community but failed to restore RCRE's  core funding grant as according to the Cabinet report on the issue the service outlined in the service level agreement  'was limited to race equality, where a wider equalities perspective is now envisaged'.

Labour councillors have agreed to set up a new equalities body which will...scrutinise the Council among other public bodies (despite being dependent on the Council for all it's funding).

8. Absent Friends

Finally, it's easy in the discussion of Labour's priorities to forget the two councillors that helped make all the above happen: the Greens.

Their two councillors didn't turn up to Cabinet on Monday and once again where absent during discussions about the Council's Budget.

It's possible to draw several conclusions from this and I'm afraid none of them are positive.

At the moment, Reading's Labour councillors are tweaking this year's budget.

The budget we successfully set without closing a single library, sure start centre or leisure service.

For Labour this is the easy part.

But as we speak, officers are preparing options for next years budget.

As I explained last month this will involve needing to find at least £9 million pounds worth of savings or potentially more if they don't stick to our budget.

Behind the scenes Labour councillors are already preparing the ground to make massive cuts to key services in Reading.

The time to start worrying about the future of  those areas we have highlighted which are clearly not priorities to Reading Labour' Party's Town Hall bosses is now.

New Funding Opportunities for Local Community Groups Agreed

Yesterday evening the Cabinet of the Liberal Democrat - Conservative Coalition of Reading Borough Council agreed new criteria and process for allocating £181k of new funding to voluntary and community groups in Reading £81k of the grant funding will be revenue and £100k capital funding.

This follows the decision on 17 January to agree the budget allocation for grants 2011/2012 and the setting of the overall budget of the Council on 22 February 2011 when the Coalition administration of the Council agreed to increase funding to the local voluntary sector - in marked contrast to other councils across the country.

This approach has won praise from the National Association of Voluntary and Community Associations and The Spectator magazine which recently described Reading as 'a model council'.

New revenue and capital funding streams have been created to distribute funding to community and voluntary sector groups in Reading which support the priorities of  the Council which include:

• Better value for our residents
• Fairness for all our residents
• Pride in our town and ambition for its future
• Innovation in all aspects of the Council to bring about positive change

I was involved in 2009 in a CCEA Scrutiny Panel Review of the way Grant Aid was allocated to voluntary organisations in Reading. This called for greater transparency and flexibility in the process. It also concluded that funding decisions should be more closely linked to the Council's overall priorities.

As I said at Cabinet last night, I am strongly in favour of this revised approach to grant funding decisions - after all, it is public money and we need to be able to justify every penny and pound that we spend locally.

This is important to increase public confidence in what the Council does both as a public body and as a local authority.

It is also importan to ensure the process for applying for grant funding is opened up to ensure it is as accessible as possible to all groups - not just a select few who understand how the process works or who perhaps benefited from funding in the past.

It has been necessary to improve Council processes in relation to grant funding: when Labour ran the Council there was a woeful lack of transparency and accountability in the way in which grants were allocated.

Under the new approach to funding, subject to Cabinet's decision there will be 4 grant rounds for groups to 'bid' for - in June, August, November and February for revenue grants: and 2 rounds in August and February for capital grants.

Following each round, in the interests of maximum transparency and accountability a Decision Book will be published providing details of proposed grant awards. Each application deadline and the budget balances will be clearly publicised through the Council's website and Borough Council's Funding Digest publication.

Grants will be non-recurring (i.e. for one year only) and in order to be granted applicants must provide evidence to the Council of majority benefit to residents of Reading Borough Council and value for money:

• Small Community Grants - Budget £20,000
• Large Community Grants - Budget £81,000
• Capital Grants - Budget £100,000

The first category of grants is designed to support small projects including start up costs and events at neighbourhood level.

The second category of grants will be allocated to groups that demonstrate they are helping to address the Council's priorities of reducing child poverty, increasing community capacity and celebrity diversity.

I am particularly pleased to see the Council supporting community efforts to reduce poverty - this is a critical issue for us in Reading and something that Labour did too little to address when they were in power.

As my colleague Cllr Kirsten Bayes said in the meeting, with 1 in 5 children in our area living in poverty we believe strongly that the Council must look at everything it does to try to reduce poverty. This is something that the Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to doing.


The third category is for capital grants to local groups that are responsible for not for profit buildings or wish to improve their local environment and quality of life. For example, funding could go to building alterations and extensions, building equipment, and local area enhancement of a capital nature.

When councils across England are cutting funding to the voluntary sector, it sends a very positive message that here in Reading the Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition is looking at new ways to support the efforts of community groups and volunteers who work so hard to improve local neighbourhoods and the lives of local people.

I really hope that local groups come forward and take advantage of these new opportunities.

Why Social Mobility Matters in Reading

Even if you don't have time to read the whole document, the executive summary of the Coalition Government's Social Mobility Strategy makes salutary reading:

"There is a long way to go. The income and social class of parents continue to have a huge bearing on a child’s chances.

• Only one in five young people from the poorest families achieve five good GCSEs, including English and maths, compared with threequarters from the richest families.
• 25% of children from poor backgrounds fail to meet the expected attainment level at the end of primary school, compared to 3% from affluent backgrounds.
• Almost one in five children receive free school meals, yet this group accounts for fewer than one in a hundred Oxbridge students.
•  Only a quarter of boys from working-classbackgrounds get middle-class (professional or managerial) jobs.

• Just one in nine of those with parents from low income backgrounds reach the top income quartile, whereas almost half of those with parents in the top income quartile stay there. 

• Only 7% of the population attend independent schools, but the privately educated account for more than half of the top level of most professions, including 70% of high court judges, 54% of top journalists and 54% of chief executive officers of FTSE 100 companies.
• The influence of parental income on the income of children in Britain is among the strongest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Parental income has over one and a half times the impact on male incomes in Britain compared with Canada,Germany and Sweden.

This is Labour's real legacy to the young people of this country and it is a terrible one: not to have improved the life chances of many of the UK's poorest children.

Nick Clegg has long championed the need to do something about the fact that in parts of the UK the poorest children overtaken by richer ones in education by the age of 7 and I'm delighted he is using the platform of Government to try and bring about change.

This is as important at local level as it is nationally. Here in Reading where you are born and your background continues to exert a powerful influence on your ability to succeed.

This is wrong and I am committed to doing everything in my power to improve the life chances of everyone in our community - whatever their background. This is one of the issues that gets me out of bed in the morning and drives me to put the crazy hours I do into politics at local level.

I am driven in part because I realise how lucky I have been compared to others in my own life and I want to help others who haven't been so lucky.

I am state-school educated but I freely admit I have benefited from the sort of opportunities that many others have not such as work-experience and access to social networks of family and friends.

The Pupil Premium will  help us do that by investing in education of the poorest children in our community. Increasing apprenticeships in Reading also helps us do that as a Council.

At national level we will have for the first time up a joined-up cross-government approach that focusses resources on reducing child poverty - something Labour failed to do in 13 years.

Improving educational outcomes and social mobility is urgent in Reading where one in five children live in poverty.

In my role as Lead Member for Housing, Health and Community Care I take a keen interest in measures to tackle poverty and I was really pleased to see the role housing plays in the Government's new Child Poverty Strategy published today:

"Having a stable, good quality home to live in is a basic necessity. Children in bad housing conditions are more likely to have long-term ill health, slow physical growth and delayed cognitive development. A review by the British Medical Association highlighted the links between housing and a range of physical and mental health issues. Poor quality housing is associated with reduced mental well-being and housing conditions in childhood can have a long-term impact on health, even if conditions improve."

"The wider community in which a child grows up can also influence their future outcomes. The poorer the neighbourhood, the more likely it is to have high rates of crime, poor air quality, lack of green spaces and safe places for children to play.100 The report of the Government’s champion for active, safer communities, Baroness Newlove, demonstrates the contribution communities can make to keeping their neighbourhoods safe and how services can support communities to lead this work."

And I am proud that Nick Clegg is spearheading work across government to ensure that "birth is never destiny".  I would like to add my own aspiration: better to try and fail to build a more socially mobile society in Reading using the tools we have available than never to have tried at all.

Labour in Reading:a responsibility free zone

The Evening Post reports that more than one in five children in Reading are raised in poverty.
Senior Labour Councillor Mike Orton  is described in the same article as being 'horrified' by the figures and keen to challenge the current administration of the Council to tackle poverty in future.
I agree with Mike - these statistics are shocking and they highlight the scale of the task we face to try and make Reading a fairer, healthier, more successful Town for all residents. I am keen to make the Council focus more closely on what we can do to reduce child poverty although clearly responsibility does not lie entirely with the Council but other agencies too.
Sadly this issue is not news to me - in fact it was the basis for the cross-party scrutiny review I led with Cllr Mark Ralph (Conservative)  earlier this year which challenged the complacent attitudes of the then Labour administration towards health inequality, and called for a concerted effort across local agencies to break the cycle of poverty in Reading. How depressing that the response of Labour councillors at the time was characterised by repeated attempts to rubbish me rather than take the issue seriously - hence when the review reported to Cabinet I was forced to argue that child poverty was too important an issue to be reduced to a political football.
Indeed had Cllr Ralph and I not raised serious concerns child poverty would not even have been discussed by councillors last Tuesday (one of our agreed recommendations was regular update reports to councillors to enable them to more effectively challenge the Council).
So with this in mind, my colleagues and I in the Coalition Administration are grateful for Cllr Orton's backing in our efforts to reduce poverty where high-spending Labour councillors and a Labour government, has so comprehensively failed the poorest children in our communities.

But let's make one thing clear: this shocking picture of thousands of children living in real poverty did not develop overnight as the result of Coalition policies. The figures quoted in the article and the scrutiny panel meeting which relate to child poverty are based on statistics collected only a few months ago when Reading was still ruled by a Labour-run Council, and a Labour government.

All of which begs the question what was Cllr Orton doing to during that time to challenge Labour members and officers? I cannot for the life of me recall him or other Labour councillors making impassioned speeches about the need for action on child poverty. Those speeches were left to opposition members to make.
It is a mystery. What is widely known is that Cllr Orton  has been a Whitley councillor since 1975 (one of the most deprived wards in Reading), and is both a former Leader of the Council and former Lead Member for Community Care. Someone who has been well placed to lead change locally and not someone who has lacked power or influence over Labour policy locally or nationally.
However, sadly in this area like so many others the Labour Party in Reading has increasingly become a responsibility free zone, and in my view the people of Reading deserve better.

Fair taxes will help ordinary people in Reading West

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg today launched Lib Dem proposals for fair taxes. Readers of this blog and people that have spoken to me will know that I am passionate about the need to reduce inequality in Reading so that everyone can thrive wherever they live and whatever their bank balance. This is because since moving to Reading seven years ago I was struck by the real poverty I saw in a so-called 'boom town'. The Economist confirmed this picture in this article a few weeks ago.I was disgusted that under a Labour government and Labour council areas of the town had been allowed to get so rundown and so many people left to struggle. People who had been told time and time again that Labour was on their side. So I'm delighted that Nick has put fairness at the centre of the Lib Dem manifesto leaving up to these important elections. Currently the poorest 20% of people in our area are losing more of their income in tax than they did in 1997 and the richest 20% are paying less. The gap between rich and poor neighbourhoods around Reading has widened and the number of children living in poverty has gone up. Nick today pledged that the Lib Dems would raise the tax threshold to £10,000 so that people would not pay tax on the first £10,000 they earn. This would help millions of people on low incomes including pensioners and also cut most people's tax bills by £700. We would pay for this by closing tax loopholes that Labour have allowed to continue for years. We'd also introduce a new tax on homes worth over £2.5 million pounds (bearing in mind the average house price in Reading is £221k) and introduce 'green taxes' on aviation. Anyway, enough from me - watch this video to hear Nick setting out these radical plans much more eloquently than I ever could!

Filling in the gaps - campaigning for better oral health

I got a call from the BBC earlier today to ask me my views on NHS Dentistry in Reading West. I guessed that the question would be related to lack of dentists accepting NHS patients.And I was right.Apparently the Conservative Shadow Health Secretary was visiting and had raised the issue on the back of a local survey his party had done. I won't dispute that this is a common concern in the local community here - it is certainly is. But I thought it was important to get some facts straight about the situation here in Reading - something I have a unique perspective on in this election campaign through my time spent as Chair of Health Scrutiny on Reading Borough Council for the past 2 years. When I first moved to Reading from London in 2003 I recall work colleagues telling me the difficulties they had finding a dentist on the NHS. Local residents made similar points to me when I knocked on doors. So when I became chair of the main health scrutiny committee in Reading - the Housing, Health and Community Care Scrutiny Panel in May 2008 I took the opportunity to get this issue on the agenda as I was concerned about it and worried about the impact this was having on people living in Reading who could not afford to go private. We have since discussed the issue several times in scrutiny - in fact it's rarely been off our agenda since I've been in the chair. Last year we called for a detailed investigation into a town centre dentists that was failing to advertise NHS services.
A quick look at the annual report produced by Berkshire West PCT Patient Advice & Liaison Service (PALS) which we discussed in public in scrutiny last September shows that the number one NHS service people in our area contacted PALS about was Dental Services - this accounted for 1980 of all enquiries - around 46% of PALs caseload. In my capacity as Chair of HHCC Scrutiny Panel I have regularly asked questions of the Primary Care Trust (PCT) to find out what is behind these figures. What the PCT told me was that the issue in our area is not a lack of dentists taking NHS patients but a widespread misconception out there that NHS dentists are in short supply (when in fact they are not): (from the most recent PALs report)"Reading has a good geographical spread of NHS dental practices which means that the area is well served. There are currently 9 dental practices in Reading who are accepting new adult NHS patients. There are also a series of Community Dental Clinics and an on-call rota offering emergency intervention for patients who need urgent treatment and those with complex needs. However, despite widespread advertisement it is still proving difficult to break the public’s misconception that there are no NHS dentists in the area.The important question I ask every year when this issue comes up is- what is the PCT doing to help patients and improve health outcomes? The answer I got was this: "PALS ensure that information about local practices who are accepting new NHS patients is kept up to date and is published on the PCT’s website. Posters have been issued to GP practices and Pharmacies encouraging them to display lists of local dentists who are accepting new patients. Information has been included in the PCT’s ‘Your Guide to Local Health Services’ which has been published as part of each Local Authority’s annual newsletter / report to residents." I telephoned the PCT this afternoon to check my facts and was told that the issue continues to be one of communication, not lack of NHS Dentists. More clearly needs to be done to get the message across to residents about dental services but also to improve oral health in our community. If you want to find a dentist accepting new NHS patients try this link.
It is Lib Dem policy to give local people more influence over local health services in their area by introducing locally elected health boards. At present there is too little accountability in our health services. Our health scrutiny panel in Reading only meets 5 times a year and health issues have to be fitted around housing and community care items. People can complain via PALS and the LINK but it is actually very difficult fore local people to get action taken on health matters. A really big issue in Reading in relation to dentistry is poor oral health - particularly amongst young children in deprived areas. The facts are these: Reading has twice the decayed, filled and missing teeth (dmf-t) score compared to Wokingham.Variation within Reading is greater than that found between other PCTs or at a national level. This is a major indicator of child poverty.This is related to poor diet and linked to health inequality - something I have campaigned to get on the local political agenda and a key focus of our recent scrutiny review into children's health. Better health outcomes wherever you live and no matter how much money you have in Reading West is a real priority for me.I will be discussing what Reading Borough Council and local health bodies can do to improve children's health on April 12 when I present our scrutiny review recommendations to the Labour-run Cabinet. I'm glad that Labour, Conservative and Green candidates for Reading West agree with me that NHS dental services are important. What sets me apart from all three of them is the fact that I have years of experience under my belt campaigning for better health services and better public health locally which I have gained as a local councillor and chair of health scrutiny in Reading. Visit my Council blog for more details.