Council

 

 

The Lib Dem Executive takes most of the decisions in the running of the Borough but the Council sets the policy and budgetary framework within which the Executive operates. All Members attend this meeting, which is chaired by the Mayor, and is open to the public.

 

Council meetings are held at 7:30pm in Guildhall.

 

The start of the meeting takes the following format

 

 

  1. Minutes
  2. Mayoral Announcements
  3. Topical Statements Each Statement is restricted to a maximum of four minutes and contributions will then be taken from up to five speakers one of which will be the Leader (or nominated representative) of the Party Group making the request. The Member making the statement will then have an opportunity to respond to the debate.
  4. Petitions A Member of the Council or a member of the Public may present a petition to the Council on a matter in relation to which the Council has powers, duties or which affects the Royal Borough.
  5. Motion One Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition.
  6. Questions These may be addressed to the Mayor, Executive Members, the Leader of the Council, the Leader of the Opposition, Chairs of the Overview Commission and Scrutiny Panel, Standing and Neighbourhood Committees and Members representing the Council on Outside Bodies.

Most recent Council Meeting:

30th March 2010

PETITIONS

The following petitions were presented in accordance with Standing Order No. 7 by the Councillors indicated:

Councillor David Cunningham on behalf of residents objecting to the proposal by TfL to remove 32 bus stop Countdown signs in the Borough

Councillor Ian George on behalf of residents of Meldone Close and Greenfild Avenue requesting that the Council address the issue of garden flooding in the area as a matter of urgency.

The petitions will be referred to the appropriate bodies.

MOTIONS

(1) Councillor Paul Johnston proposed and Councillor Patrick Codd seconded the following motion:

‘The Audit Commission & the CAA report, in a document not hitherto circulated by the Administration, stated that only a quarter of residents of the Royal Borough consider they are getting value for money from the Council despite paying the highest Council Tax in London. Candidates in the forthcoming election will shortly have to account on the doorsteps of the Royal Borough for the lamentable performance of this 8 year old Administration which has brought about this unprecedented level of public disenchantment.

We therefore call upon the Administration to publish the Audit Commission document which contains the statement and to apologise to the citizens of the Royal Borough for its shortcomings during its long tenure of office.’

(2) After debate the motion was declared lost.

QUESTIONS

By Councillor Frances Moseley

To Councillor Howard Jones, Leader of the Conservative Group

Question:

Does Cllr Jones agree that the shortage of primary school places in Surbiton is so serious that no feasible potential sites for a school should be ruled out at this stage?

Reply:

Yes I certainly agree, and I think that it has been made very clear by my colleagues that we have all agreed to that all along the line, and that’s what we were looking for.

Supplementary:

Given that you have said that, which I totally applaud, can you explain why the Conservative spokesman on Education has said that were he to become Executive Member for Children’s Services he would replace any silly idea of building a primary school on the hospital site.

Reply:

I think actually Cllr Doe has actually made it very clear what he thinks of this particular issue. I would say that he was making clear that he is critical of the reliance on one particular site.

The bottom line is that he said at the Councillors’ Planning Workshop, when the hospital site was discussed, that he was very critical of one site being discussed. I know Cllr Doe very well and I have discussed this issue with him interminably. Cllr Doe is very much in favour of all sites being properly looked at, properly considered and then properly consulted, which is apparently something that the Liberal Democrats don’t want to do.

As I understand it, there are a number of sites which the Liberal Democrats don’t want to look at, including the King Charles Centre, which we have been told is not big enough according to guidelines. But the point is that the guidelines are just guidelines, they’re not conditions; they’re not financial requirements. They assume that a site’s going to be tight and that a primary school can be built on two floors, something that we at RBK seem loathe to do. The website portrays idyllic pictures of children playing outside in play areas. At least in central Surbiton we have the Fishponds Park and the Alexandra Recreation Park which are all accessible from feasible sites, and some without the need to cross the very busy Ewell Road.

There are lots of arguments for and against all the sites, Councillor, and we would not be pro or against any of them that came forward under proper discussion and proper consideration and proper consultation. And that’s what it’s about and that’s what you seem loathe to do because your MP put forward in the first place the Surbiton Hospital site and you did not want to brook any other site. That was the position - you did not want to brook any other site and you tried to force through the Surbiton Hospital site. You’ve now seen sense – I am very pleased that you’ve seen sense – and I hope we can have a proper – can I say – mature discussion on any site that comes up for discussion and let’s see that we get the right school for the children of Surbiton.

By Councillor Robert-John Tasker

To Councillor Derek Osbourne, Leader of the Council

Question:

In a recent article in the popular press headlined ‘Nick Clegg: how Margaret Thatcher inspires me’, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has spoken of his admiration for Baroness Thatcher and her Conservative government. Mr Clegg said that his party’s economic policies are representative of Thatcherite free market principles. He also said that his party’s tax policies were similar to those of Lord Lawson, the Conservative chancellor during the 1980’s. Mr Clegg said that he had campaigned against many of Lady Thatcher’s policies during the 1980’s. But, he said, he now realised that she had been right on many things. He also said that many of Britain’s economic problems could be explained by a failure to enact pro-competition policies put forward by Lady Thatcher.

Does the Leader of the Council agree with the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party?

Reply:

If he was a sensible chap then he wouldn’t have ditched Baroness Thatcher in the way that he did. The little men – all those grey men got together and said we’re going to lose if we’ve got you in charge so you have got to go.

If Nick Clegg had actually said that I would have been quite happy to say that I disagree with my Leader. However, I’m sure Cllr Tasker knows better than to believe everything he reads in the press; especially the Spectator. What the Leader of the Liberal Democrats actually said, as was repeated so well by his deputy in the recent Chancellor’s debate, was that ‘what we need today is somebody to do to the bankers – who have an unhealthy grip on this country – what Margaret Thatcher did to the unions – who had an unhealthy grip on the country in the 70s and 80s. We need to tackle the vested interests of the pin-stripe Scargills’. And I whole-heartedly agree and would add that I know that George Osborne is not up to the job. What we need is somebody to tackle the vested interests. I’m saying this country needs to tackle the vested interests of tadodging millionaires in our political system, as well as wealthy, right wing organisations intent on ‘radicalising’ young activists.

The American right wing Republican organisation that organises Young Britons - people who send young Conservative activists off to America to campaign against universal health care; those young Conservative activists who seek and take up of allowing of non restriction of gun recalls. Things like that.

It’s got a lot to do with how you look at it. It’s got a lot to do with the person who asked the question. If you’ve got a question to answer - a written question - about Young Britons I suggest that you press the person who asked that rather more carefully than I suspect you would have done. Anyway, Nick Clegg did not say Thatcher was right about many things. He did not say that Thatcher was right about many things; whatever was in the Spectator’s report. Neither are Lib Dem economic policies Thatcherite – those are figments of the right-wing press’s fertile imagination.

Furthermore, he did not praise the Thatcherite deregulation policies - it was the deeply irresponsible tax regulation framework put in place by Thatcher and made worse by New Labour that caused the recent crash.

Supplementary:

Now we have proved Conservative Leadership of the Lib Dems, which Councillor Osborne failed to properly address, would the Kingston Lib Dems follow the Kingston Conservatives and endorse our objective of freezing council tax in the next budget year?

Reply:

As I have said, we do not have a Conservative Liberal Democrat Leader or else we would be Conservatives. We’re not; we are Liberal Democrats. We believe in things like giving people healthcare, we believe in things like opportunities for all, we believe in people paying their taxes in this country not trying to buy votes. Cllr

Robert-John Tasker has asked a most nakedly political question and if he is getting a nakedly political answer then he must accept that. The fact is we are not. Let’s just talk about your central argument about tax - will we freeze it? No. Will David Cameron freeze it? Well that really depends doesn’t it about what he is going to go.

Because what he has not said is what is going to go, just as you in your early leaflets did not say what is going to go. What I do know is you didn’t vote for a budget amendment for a 0% Council Tax because your side didn’t put a 0% Council Tax as an object; did it?

Now we don’t know, do we, what the implications of a Conservative government 0% Council Tax might look like. We don’t know what it does for the social care-specific grant, we don’t know what it does for the education-specific grant, we actually know nothing. 0% on Council Tax is going to be, I imagine, a popular, imaginably vote winning policy but what is it that people are saying on the door steps? What is it they are saying to the pollsters? What they are saying is where are the cuts? What are the Tories going to do to get to 0%? You know that too because you probably get all the polls. So don’t pretend that you’re not because I tell you what, four years ago we had – and there are people who will remember that – four years ago we had Tories bouncing up and down saying you’ve lost, you’ve lost, and we’re in. Where has been that this time? None of it. Because you know that you’ve got a fight much harder than you thought you were going to have six months ago. Because why?

You won’t say what you will do.

By Councillor Patrick Codd

To Councillor Penny Shelton, Executive Member for Housing

Question:

Would the Executive member please explain why the Executive rejected Housing Officers’ advice to rent, lease or sell to tenants the disused drying rooms in the Kingsnympton Estate in view of the parlous financial state of the Housing Revenue Account.

Reply:

In fact, this proposal has not yet come to the Executive at all so I am surprised to receive the question. However, I have to say that such a proposal is in line with the wider Asset Management Strategy which is being developed by the Council and I can only hope that the drying rooms on the Kingsnympton Park Estate which have potential for sale to neighbourhood leaseholders or for extending Council property or possibly for things like providing new homes, will come to the Executive and I think that it will do so in due course.

Supplementary:

I appreciate that from Cllr Shelton because that is at variance with the information I was given from the Housing Department. There we are. Nonetheless I am delighted and I am sure my tenants and leaseholders will be delighted to know that they will be able to purchase or lease the drying rooms which are lying fallow at the moment which struck me as an appalling shame particularly as one particular leaseholder had been trying for two years to purchase or lease or rent a drying room on the Kingsnympton Park Estate. I am delighted with your reply and in that case on the back of that I shall ensure as of tomorrow that something is done by the Housing Department to ensure that this information is given directly to you so that it can be actioned by the Executive.

Reply:

Thank you for that Cllr Codd and of course we have to consider the whole range of proposals that come before us and I am not necessarily saying that one will directly be agreed, it has to be the best bargain for the Council and the best use of its resources.

Tuesday, 19th January 2010

Motions

(1) Councillor Nick Kilby proposed and Councillor Howard Jones seconded the following motion:

With the disclosure that £2million of savings have been lost owing to the failure of the One Council Programme to achieve its financial targets, this Council has grave concern about the validity of the financial forecasts and future savings projected.

(2) Following debate the motion as set out in (1) above was put to the meeting and declared lost.

Topical Statements

Councillor Ken Smith requested a topical statement from Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change, as follows:

The recent snow and freezing weather has exacerbated cracks in many of the Borough’s roads. Lack of previous maintenance has in many cases caused these cracks to become potholes. What actions does the Administration propose to take to ensure that cracks and potholes are speedily identified and effectively repaired?’

Statement by Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change:

There is no doubt that the recent severe weather will have had a significant impact on the condition of our roads and pavements. Given we are only in January we can expect further damage to be done during the remaining winter months.

However, we start from a position of strength. The Council has placed a high priority in recent years on highway maintenance. We invested £10 million of capital expenditure in our Highways during the five years to 31 March 2009. That funding was on top of the revenue budgets of £1,025,000 per annum managed by the Neighbourhood Committees. In the current year we increased the revenue funding for asset management by £500,000, and in the light of last winter’s severe weather made a one off additional allocation of £500,000 to address the damage caused .

In November last year TfL confirmed that the Borough’s principal roads were in the best condition of any Council across London with 98% below the national threshold for further investigation.

The Council has a well established process for the regular inspection, monitoring and repair of highways. Neighbourhood Committees receive regular reports on the prioritisation of maintenance work required in their Neighbourhood. I am aware that officers have already identified exceptionally severe damage caused by the recent bad weather in Presburg Road and remedial works are already in hand. I anticipate similar action being required in many other roads across the Borough. We should be confident that we have in place both the processes to identify the required work and the flexibility at Neighbourhood level to adjust the previously agreed maintenance plans and address the work required in a sensible order of priority.

Councillors David Cunningham, Tricia Bamford, Patrick Codd and Derek Osbourne made contributions in response to the statement, and Councillor Bob Steed replied.

Questions:

Councillor Robert-John Tasker

To Councillor Patrick Codd, Chair Maldens & Coombe Neighbourhood Committee

Question:

Will the Chairman of Maldens & Coombe update the Council on his progress in resolving the problem inherited by the Conservative run neighbourhood from the former discredited Liberal Democrat control in respect to New Malden High Street?

Reply:

I will with great pleasure. Transport for London has allocated £50,000 for 2010/2011 to investigate the condition of sections of the carriageway in New Malden High Street, and to consider ways to smooth the flow of traffic along the road.

The bid has been approved by TfL through the Corridors Funding Programme and by the New Malden Neighbourhood Committee. It awaits final approval from the Executive, and I am disappointed by the Leader’s reference to it tonight, because before then I was confident that he would agree for the benefit of residents and the businesses, which depend on free and easy access to the High Street. How naïve I was!

This cannot be compared with the LIP 2 two consultants for a scheme which may well be shelved when there is a change of Government in May. And I hope this does not get dumped on ideological grounds that defy reason or common sense. The £50,000 will fund the detailed feasibility study and design of any consequential repairs to be made and we are also identifying the construction elements to be funded in future years following the outcomes from this piece of work.

The various elements involved will need to be fully designed and costed before any project management and programming can be started. It is anticipated that the scheme would broadly consist of the following aspects:

- realignment of curves to maintain traffic flows;

- redistribution of road space;

- reconstruction of the main carriageway

With the redistribution of road space we plan to eventually reinstate the bus bays to ease congestion caused by traffic backing up behind stationery buses. We will also remove the unnecessary clutter on the pavements, which hinder easy pedestrian progress. For instance the benches that are placed across the pavement and all the free standing advertising hoardings.

In this way we will make shopping in the High Street an even more enjoyable experience. The biggest problem, however, will be the reconstruction of a highway itself. This has and continues to deteriorate with devastating impact due to the illadvised decision by the former Liberal Democratic Administration in the neighbourhood to squeeze the road space into two narrow lanes. This forces the traffic including the buses and heavy articulated vehicles with their massive axel rate, to drive in tram like style on the same small section of road pounding it to destruction. This impact is aggravated by the quality of the sub-surface. Subsurfaces which were already at risk before the ill-advised scheme went ahead.

Part of the fill used in the subsections was coke spoil from the former Kingston Power Station. While this would be adequate in normal circumstances where the strain is spread over a wide area, in the context of New Malden High Street, it has proved disastrous. Sooner, rather than later, the highway will have to be reconstructed with deep excavation down to the lower levels – at huge cost and massive inconvenience and impact on residents,’ shops and businesses. The road condition has been causing concern since we took over the administration of the neighbourhood. It started with the not so pretty cobbled steps that proved dangerous and has degenerated into the massive problems we now face. We have patched and patched causing great inconvenience, but we cannot continue in this fashion and there is no easy solution.

One that would have tided us over for a few more years would be to put a thick top layer across the whole carriageway strengthening from the top, but this would mean raising the carriageway level to the same height as the pavements with the inevitable risk of severe flooding in heavy rain, so no help there.

This is the legacy, Mr Mayor, of a badly thought through scheme we opposed, but which we have inherited, and that is why we need to spend £50,000 to start to finally sort it out.

Supplementary:

Clearly, there is a need for drastic improvement as I would hope all colleagues on either side of the chamber would agree, but obviously in agreement with my own residents here this is a signature piece, I am afraid, of Liberal Democrat incompetence, which needs to be put right correctly and soon. Could Councillor Codd tell the Council what chance we have of the £50,000 being made available for a much needed improvement?

Reply:

Well, until this evening and I heard the Leader of the Administration, I would have thought it was in the bag so to speak. It is necessary, it is needed, and I would have thought the last thing a wise administration would do would be to block something that is aimed to improve the condition of New Malden High Street and make it once again a must go destination and not what it is at times a traffic jam. This is necessary. We need it and I would sincerely hope that as I say commonsense will prevail and that the Executive will in their wisdom see it fit to forward this money towards this scheme.

Councillor Howard Jones

To Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change

Question:

Will the Liberal Democrats support the Conservative initiative for the Freedom Pass Petition that is currently on the Number 10 website?

Reply:

No, we will not. This is not because my colleagues and I disagree with its sentiment. As a member of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee I was immensely proud to agree the five year extension of our Freedom Pass deal on behalf of the Borough.

We have complained against the proposed cuts to funding from the Labour Government as well as the threats the Conservative Mayor of London posed to the scheme when they increased the cost of subsidy for London Boroughs by £1m. I am told that the epetition in question is currently undergoing external investigation by London Councils and I do not believe it will be appropriate for me to sign at this time.

As I understand it, a few days ago, a Conservative Party researcher at London Councils submitted this petition to a number 10 website under the organisation’s name without explanation of his political role or approval from London Councils.

London Councils will be reminding the researcher in question that under their organisation’s rules all political parties should set up campaign websites publicly and openly so as not to mislead the public.

I and my fellow local Liberal Democrats want the Transport Minister to reverse his plan to cut important funding to London’s Freedom pass scheme. I have signed the official Freedom Pass Petition on the Liberal Democrats’ website and I will continue to support all public campaigns on this issue and others which ask for a fair deal for the residents of Kingston upon Thames.

Supplementary:

Given all the politicking that is going on behind the scenes with Councillor Steed and his situation with regards to a perfectly proper petition that is on the website. Given that, Mr Mayor, we are in a situation where this Council will have to probably find a substantial sum of money to replace the Government subsidy, can the Executive Member give us a clue as to where the Liberal Democrats would cut in order to meet this requirement?

Reply:

I think I have made it clear that the Liberal Democrat policies are absolutely clear on this, but the point is somebody was abusing the London Councils and I can’t actually support somebody abusing that. If I heard of a Liberal Democrat doing that as a researcher I would be very concerned because it is misleading so I would suggest that hopefully if the London Councils website is set up properly, the petition on 10 Downing Street is set up properly I will sign it, but I can’t sign it this case.

Councillor Derek Osbourne

To Councillor Howard Jones, Leader of the Opposition

Question:

In October of last year, the opposition Group Leader told the local press that David Cameron gave a “nod nod, wink wink” to improving Kingston’s local government settlement grant if his party came to Government. Given Mr Cameron’s recent admission that he has ‘messed up’ over previous tax pledges, and once solid-sounding promises of public sector investment and tax cuts have been ditched from the Tory manifesto, what confidence does Cllr Jones now have in his party leader’s ‘nod nod, wink wink’?

Reply:

I have the article in question in front of me and I am afraid that the Leader of the Council is totally misquoting the article, let alone what I said, so can I suggest he has a word with his own researcher about what is said in the article. I will, actually, read the article, Mr Mayor, just to prove my point, then I shall sit down. If the Leader would like to then extrapolate from his question, a proper question, I might answer it.

This is what is said in the article “North Kingston residents have been invited” and there is stuff about a meeting in Richmond. It is about Conservative Party Leader, David Cameron, coming to a meeting and it says “the meeting with the Party Leader, David Cameron comes as local Tory leader, Howard Jones, said he hoped any new Conservative Government would improve Kingston’s local government grant. In discussions, shadow Cabinet Members were unwilling to make firm commitments, but Councillor Jones said I would love them to change the formula”.

Mr Mayor, in this article, which I have in front of me, there is no mention at all of me quoting David Cameron and on that basis I have just bounced the question back to the Leader of the Council.

Supplementary:

I do recall reading it and indeed hearing it, so on the evidence of that I am quite content unless Councillor Jones is going to stand up in this chamber and say he never used the expression. Howard, that will do as a supplementary and we will fight it out afterwards.

Reply:

Well, now that I have got a question that I can answer, I will attempt to do so. I am going to take advantage of the opportunity now where the Leader of the Council has seen fit, not to attack anything that is going on in this Council, or any of the Councillors, but to attack the Conservative Party Leader, which actually puts into play as far as I am concerned the whole of the Liberal Democrat Administration nationally and locally. Therefore, Mr Mayor, what I actually said was that I hope the Conservative Government would improve Kingston’s rate support grant and that there was pressure from Conservative leaders in outer London Boroughs for a change in the formula, which would mean that we would get a better deal. I did say that I had talked to Shadow Ministers and that although they would not make any specific promises they were aware of the situation and would do what they could to improve it. Financial commitments at the time were not on the table. The Shadow Team was, however, very concerned about the country’s debt situation, but they were very well aware also of London Boroughs prides. The situation still exists, Mr Mayor, where the Conservative Government will match fund Council Tax increases kept below 2.5% and will create a situation where the Council will be allowed to keep new business rates collected after the election. These measures will undoubtedly help towards the funding crises.

Addressing the second part of the question, it is may be time to remind the Leader of the Council and Liberal Democrat supporters two things about voting Liberal Democrat at the moment. Firstly, a vote for a Liberal Democrat MP, Mr Mayor, is a vote which will be wasted, because the vote and the struggle to get Kingston’s voice heard at the table of a new Conservative Government might quite clearly be made much more thoroughly and strongly by Conservative MPs..

And secondly, Mr Mayor, I understand the derision that is in the Leader’s voice regarding the Leader of the Conservative Party’s alleged about turn on some financial matters I was looking at something about Mr Clegg today. Mr Clegg shelves party policy. Mr Clegg said shopping lists of pledges won’t wash anymore. The politics of plenty are over. He said that he would no longer be able to afford a £2 billion pledge to provide free personal care for the 65s. A big Liberal Democrat plank, Mr Mayor. The citizens’ pension rising immediately in line with earnings rather than prices, no longer on the Liberal agenda, Mr Mayor.

Extending free child care to all 18 month olds, no longer on the Liberal agenda, Mr Mayor. Flagship policy of scrapping university tuition fees, Mr Mayor, no longer on the agenda. Come on Mr Mayor, Mr Clegg, Mr Osbourne, all the Liberal Democrats should not start throwing stones in glass houses when they themselves could not manage this Council effectively.

Thank you Mr Mayor.

Councillor Ken Smith

To Councillor Patrick Codd , Chair of the Maldens & Coombe Neighbourhood Committee

Question:

Would Councillor Codd join with Councillor Howard Jones, Councillor Mary Clark and myself in thanking the RBK officers, Safer Neighbourhood Teams and Fire Services, plus all other agencies for making Beverley Ward and St James Ward Open Day such a success.

Reply:

Well, of course, it was a success and I am delighted to add my congratulations and my thanks to those of the aforementioned Councillors. It was the sort of thing we are trying to do to have a closer contact with our residents and as that particular one was held on the same afternoon as the lighting of the New Malden Christmas lights it attracted very large crowds, which was excellent and while I fully accept that the Mayor was there riding down the middle of the High Street lighting the lights, which was a delight to everyone, it was disappointing, however, that some of the local Councillors did not see fit to turn up for such an engagement, which gave a very good opportunity for meeting members of the public who do not often get involved in local government affairs in any shape or form and normally do not attend neighbourhood meetings, or have much contact with us. So, I think, I would only hope and urge all Councillors in Maldens and Coombe who are relevant to try and come to our next open day, which is at Robin Hood Primary School. The Leader, I know, is with me and Councillor Jones at a meeting. Robin Hood Primary School on February 1 in late afternoon which is being organised with the school. Parents will be there and it will be again a good turnout, the officers are doing a splendid job on these; getting to know the public and getting more closely and try and get people more involved in the Council, what we do, what we can offer and how we can help them, so I do urge everyone who can to attend that one on February 1.

Tuesday, 24th November 2009

Questions:

Councillor: Nick Kilby

To Councillor: Howard Jones, Leader of the Conservative Group

Question

Following the recent delivery of the Liberal Democrat newspaper to homes in the borough that suggested the Mayor of London is planning cuts to front line policing resources in Kingston, would the Leader of the Opposition tell us what a Conservative administration would do in similar circumstances?

Reply:

There is no doubt that disinformation and scaremongering with downright misinformation causes great concern within communities and is a cynical way of trying to deflect resident’s attention from the nightmare of bureaucratic waste within this Council.

The Liberal Democrat MPs and this Administration are deliberately engaged already in an election ploy to try and convince residents that public safety and security is safe with them.

Let's get this straight, straight from the horse’s mouth: there will be no reduction in front line policing; police officers available to fight crime and disorderly behaviour on our streets will not be reduced; Safer Neighbourhood police team numbers are not negotiable; that is the message from Boris and the Deputy Mayor for policing in London, Kit Malthouse and I quote directly so that our MPs should take note:

To be completely clear we have no plans whatsoever to reduce front line police officers. Quite the reverse in fact. We have demanded and expect the Met to deliver a significantly increased uniformed presence on the streets of every Borough. More single patrolling, more uniforms on public transport, and in our town centres. We expect to see the number of warranted officers in London beat all known records.

That sounds pretty clear to me Mr Davey, Mrs Kramer and Councillor Osbourne.

If you were really on this case we would see more evidence of positive activity, more responsibility – more leadership, more visible signs that you are actually caring – rather than negative scaremongering.

What has this Administration done within the Community Leadership role that we expect - and that the community has a right to expect?

Burglaries have risen by 49% and drug abuse is on the increase – we see no response from the Council other than to repeat the mantra that we live in the safest Borough in London.

Conservative Councils across London are working with the Mayor of London to reduce the back office costs of our police service and where possible and necessary have made substantial local investment in the fight against crime by investing money - by paying for additional police officers and providing other on the street policing resources – actually putting money where their mouths are!!

We would actively engage with the local Police Commander and discuss what local investment may be possible and appropriate.

We will if necessary put our money where our mouths are.

The police numbers in this Borough: provided by the Metropolitan Police Service show that we now have more Police Officers in this Borough at the moment than at this time last year - the numbers have increased from 279 to 304 within the last 12 months.

This is Conservative Leadership by the Mayor of London keeping his pledge to the residents of Kingston.

We will do even more. Up to recently we have as a Shadow Executive followed the portfolios of the Executive of this council.

I am tonight asking Councillor Ian George to take on the role of Shadow Executive Member - not only for Housing but for Crime Reduction and Prevention, Licensing and Enforcement.

Unlike the Liberal Democrats we will bring all these related functions together so that we will ensure that a Conservative Council will truly put all its efforts into supporting the police, supporting the community, supporting residents groups and other agencies in this important work.

By Councillor Eric Humphrey

To Councillor Derek Osbourne, Leader of the Council

Question:

Will the Leader of the Council make access to Members’ Financial Interests and Members’ and Officers’ Expenses available for public scrutiny by publishing the details on the Council Website?

Reply:

Dealing first with Members’ interests, I see no problem at all with details of the Members’ Register of Interests being made available on the Council’s website. Indeed, I understand that the Standards Committee, some years ago, sought to achieve that but met some resistance in certain quarters – people who were on the Standards Committee might remember that – and, consequently, the proposal was proceeded with at that time. Perhaps, in the light of this renewed interest in the topic, the Committee could be asked to look at that again.

Similarly, I can personally see no problem with details of expenses claimed by Members being available on the Council’s website. So far as allowances are concerned, the Scheme of Allowances (that is, the amounts paid to specific office holders) is on the website and has been for many years. We also publish, annually, the amounts paid to individual Councillors. In relation to expenses claimed by Members, there are periodic Freedom of Information requests relating to these and, again, I can see no problem in this information being available on the website.

In relation to Officers, I have already made a commitment (at the 21st July Council Meeting) in response to your question at that meeting, that details of expenses claimed by the Chief Executive and Senior Officers (defined by you as those earning more than £80,000 a year) be made available on the website. Work is in hand to achieve this, hopefully by the end of this calendar year, which is well ahead of my commitment that details will be published by May 2010.

In terms of the openness that I think we ought to extend, I think that Councillors on this local authority should feel no worry about our expenses being claimed. Sunlight, as we know, is considered to be the best disinfectant, and we should hate to have any infections coming to Kingston. We would not, for example, want to reflect within this authority on the Leader, who may or may not be a Conservative, although I think he might be, of Essex County Council, who charged his residents £59,000 to cover his pay and expenses, on top of a personal chauffeur-driven car service, and we know he is currently being investigated, and that will go where it will.

I have the very greatest respect for Councillor Merrick Cockell who is the Conservative Leader of Kensington and Chelsea, and is the Conservative Leader on London Councils, but it is quite interesting that if you look at the expenses that he has taken – first class flights and eaten at the most prestigious restaurants in New York at a cost to the central London ratepayer, and he has also entertained, been entertained in fact, at the finest restaurants in London such as The Ritz by property developers, interested in his Royal Borough, and actually, I have to say, that if you look at his current declared expenses, I have to say that his taxi expenses are extraordinary, and I have to say that I would never claim for a taxi ride on the rate payer of this council. And we must not forget, of course, that standard we should all put up in front of us – that very fine former Leader of Bexley who has this week started his community service painting the public toilets for – let me think, what is it here? – using a City Hall credit card to pay for thousands of pounds of personal spending including flight upgrades, and expensive dinners with his girlfriend and Tory colleagues, and groceries and car repairs.

Councillor, I am absolutely happy that we all of us will have our expenses put on the website – because I am absolutely certain all of us will have expenses which are nowhere near what other people are claiming, both as individual councillors and as leaders or other office holders. I think that we should be proud, I am sure across all of us as a local authority, as a group of councillors, that we do not take our tax payers for a ride on our expenses.

Supplementary:

I thank the Leader for the most opaque speech, which did not deal with the question, didn’t in fact conceal the glacial progress that has been made, and in the interests of transparency, because he is obviously very keen on transparency, though he does nothing about it, will you publish on the website details of the monies you receive from the IDeA?

Reply:

Well, of course, I will; of course, I will. I mean, you know, actually, you can go to the IDeA website and find that out, I would have thought, but we can do that here, and you can get what I get from London Councils, and I’m sure that any one of us, all of us, will want to publish those sorts of...but I will say this – it is interesting, isn’t it? – that it seems to me that the debate that drove into the ground on putting the register of Members’ interests on to the website, and what they were receiving elsewhere, was driven into the ground from the rejection by a Conservative Councillor, not anybody on this side. So if we are going to do the spirit of openness, if this is referred back to the Standards Board, are you telling me categorically that the Conservatives on the Standards Board will say that we are going to do it absolutely openly, and there will be no objection like there was last time to a full and open disclosure? Because that is what happened last time – it was a Conservative Member that talked it out and, yes, that person is here as it happens.

Thank you. I am not making any disparaging comments about Councillor Howard Jones, of course.