Ian Robertson, Councillor RMBC

As an example of what we do, on Monday the Service Improvement plan for Adult Care came up for scrutiny. It wa sone of about a dozen agenda items.

To give you some idea of what we look for in such sessions, here are the questions that I asked:

Q1 Performance Comparators

This is done with reference to a family of 15 authorities. As a group, where do they rank nationally?

Q2 Mental Health Service

The 06/07 Improvement Plan referred to "further improvements will be delivered ...."

In Middleton, one of the assets of the service was the Psychologist Outpatient Clinic at Hanson Corner. Apparently this has been discontinued. If true it appears to be a retrograde step. There is no reference to this aspect of the service in the current Improvement plan.

Explanation pls.

Q3 Learning Disabilities Service

a) The Plan states " Outsourcing was was effected ..., delivering efficiency....".  I have heard of concerns:

Quality - some carers/family members refusing to use the service because "not up to standard"

Eligibility - potential clients having had to be referred top other Council services because the outsourced service was not capable of meeting their needs.

Efficiency - Has the outsourced aspect of the service delivered anticipated savings?

Evaluation - Has an evaluation been undertaken of all aspects of the first year of outsourced operation? If so what are the main issues and the findings?

b) The Service Plan  states ".. introducing an approach to integrating employment with day services." 

Concerns have been expressed over the years about clients being exploited by their undertaking work for little money.

How is this being addressed?

Q4 Adult Care Budget

a) This Improvement Plan  covers three years, so the budget section ought also to cover three years. It would also be helpful to indicate the anticipated trend in demand for services over this period.

b) In the Budget Book (February 07) the section on Key Budget Risks (eg recycling rates, demand led pressures) has no reference to any anticipated risks in the Adult Care budget outcome for the year ending 07.

In the report to Cabinet dated 29 May an overspend of £2m was anticipated for 07-08 (£1m savings not achieved in 06-07 plus £1m expected not to be achieved in 07-08) .

I believe the outcome for 06-07 is now known, with the overspend down to £250,000 for 06-07.

This indicates to me that the budget is out of control. What is the explanation?

 Is this reduction in overspend a real efficiency saving, or simply a fortuitous  dip in demand for some aspect of the service?

I had some questions on the Modernisation programme however the Committee has agreed to study this separately ansd that will be a better forum for searching questions.

There has understandably been a lot of reaction to the proposed Infrastructure bid by the Association of Greater Manchester Councils that includes a congestion charge. The overwhelming response reported in the media is, so far, distinctly "NO".

Its now time to get past the sound bites. The argument needs to be widened, and we are now better placed to do this as more details of the bid emerge.

First of all, how much does congestion already cost us?  No-one has mentioned it. The off peak journey time from Middleton to Manchester by bus is 20 minutes. At peak, it is 30 minutes. So congestion adds half again to the journey tme. Who pays for that? It's not the bus operator, you can be assured it's the passenger who pays. If you're in a taxi and it's held up in a queue, does the meter stop? Not on your life. The passenger pays.

We need to have a much better idea how much congestion actually costs each and every one of us right now. Then we have to look forward five years, and guess how much it will be then. Of one thing I am certain, if we throw out the Infrastructure bid it will be more, much much more.

So if the introduction of the charge in five years time means there will be less congestion, then journey times will be quicker with reduced cost to the travelling public. The question we need to ask is: Will this indirect saving outweigh the direct charge?

Agreement to run a congestion charging pilot comes with a bribe. The bribe is nearly £3 billion to improve public transport. No charging, no £3 billion. Graham Stringer says the government should pay for improvements to public transport anyway. Maybe so, but that's pie in the sky. When it comes to handouts, the whole country is crying out for this cash. How much will each city get? Not a lot. He also believes that technical improvements can solve the problem. They would be sticking plaster. There would a difference for a bit,then we'd be back to the old problem. The Victoria Avenue nightmare has been fixed, now we queue down the road at Blackley.

In essence the Infrastructure bid is  all about making public transport attractive and convenient enough for people use to get into and out of the city at peak times. There will still be many who, for one reason or another, have no choice but to use their car or van at peak times. For them, the charge they pay will be compensated by shorter journey times.

This issue is much, much too important for the simple but understandable  response of  "NO".

We will not get a second bite at the cherry. We have to look beyond immediate self interest and decide what's best for the people, what's best for the economy. It might be easy to mirror the views of a particularly vociferous section of the community, but this decision has to be made with reflection, deliberation, and consideration for all sections of the community. In particular the next generation. They will have to live with the consequences of our decision.

AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) has just launched the formal consultation on the bid for Phase 1 of the TIF (Transport Infrastructure Fund). This is the bid that initially implements the proposed massive changes in city travelling, with congestion charging being the controversial element. The consultation runs till the end of July.

It has answered a number of the queries I had in my last entry, is remarkably comprehensive but there's still an awful lot of detail to be filled in.

Why 2012? Because that's when, planners believe, that increasing congestion will start to affect the jobs. There will be so much disruption that businesses will upsticks and move elsewhere.

There will initially be two rings: one being the M60, and an inner ring nearer the city centre. You pay when you cross the ring in the direction of peak flow at peak times. At all other times there is no charge. The outer ring will be £2 in the morning and £1 in the evening for cars, and the inner ring £1 for both morning and evening busy periods. The charges for commercial vehicles will be 'cost neutral'.

The bid is for nearly £3 billion, of which 80% will be spent before charging begins. What's the benefit for Middleton? Not that much compared with say Rochdale. We will only improved journey times at peak periods, and maybe improvements at Mills Hill station. Rochdale gets Metrolink, a new bus station and a new rail station.

Thats what's on offer.

»12:03 PM    »Write comment     »Send entry    

Posted by: ianr
Modified on May 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

 First, let me say where I 'come from'. I stopped using my car to go to work in the city about ten years ago. I just decided that sitting in queues was a mug's game. Since then I used train initially and now I use the bus, It certainly takes longer, but a) I can read on the bus and b) I get half an hour's walk each morning before I hit my desk, and feel the better for it.

I can't see anyone actually supporting a congestion charge right now. It's a bit like asking people to pay more tax - we just don't want it.

So I would say right now 'No', but we also have to listen to the arguments. It is clear that a prerequisite to even thinking about a congestion charge is improved public transport, and that doesn't just mean Rochdale's Metrolink. It means improvements in bus and rail services and improvements in parking near rail stations and bus routes. It means ensuring that everything that could be done is being done. For example all practicable improvements to the road network (just like the layout at Victoria Road intersection is being done right now). It means bus lanes right into the city. It means business and local authorities taking the lead in adopting flexible working wherever possible to spread the traffic load over a longer period and in so doing reduce congestion.

If these can be dealt with and there is still unacceptable congestion, at the end of the day we will have to consider some means of restricting traffic - by congestion charging, by prohibiting car use on alternate days, or by some other means. There will simply be no options left.

»10:26 AM    »1 comments (0 )     »Send entry    

Posted by: ianr

Doctors must meet this problem every day. This occurs when one is confronted by an issue that is described in terms of a solution seeking a problem.

I had a call from a resident 'that a particular footpath needed bollards to stop cars using it'. On making inquiries locally I established that  only one car was the culprit and it was in fact the 'paper lady'.

I approached the nearby paper shop, and confirmed that the papers were indeed delivered by a girl whose mum helped her. I mentioned the problem to the shop owner, said that I didn't want the police involved and that's the last I heard of it. On bumping into the resident the other day he confirmed that indeed the nuisance had ceased.

 The message is simply this: treat the 'complaint' as a symptom, and investigate more deeply before thinking about solutions ....