FROM BIG SOCIETY TO THE B&Q SOCIETY

Curiosity got the better of me last night as I joined Malcolm Mildren in attending the first Borough Council meeting of the new term to check up on how the new administration and new members were fairing.

Overall it was rather a turgid affair, Cllrs were shown a propaganda piece telling them all how wonderful the Housing Department are (true in some areas, but woefully untrue in others such as sheltered housing) and the skateboarders, no doubt urged on by ex Cllr Paul Varnsverry turned up en masse to call for action from the new Council to match the promises made to them before the election.

I expect (as we always said) slight differences of opinion on this one. It is true that £250,000 has been set aside in the capital programme towards such a facility, but the last Lib Dem and the current Conservatives expect this to pay for consultants and design costs and kick start some further match funding towards the overall project, whilst it seems the skateboarders think that the land will be given free and that the £250,000 will cover all of the initial build cost? I told them before the last election when they last wheeled into the chamber that they should take a leaf from the council oppositions ABC mantra of   ACCEPT NOTHING, BELIEVE NO ONE AND  CHECK EVERYTHING

There were a number of lack lustre oral contributions mainly from the old guard (worrying as they should be showing the new Cllrs the way!) The Tory new boys and girls mostly sat on their hands, the Lib Dem's haven't got any new blood, (not a lot of old blood either) but special mention must go to Labour's Gareth Eales and Elizabeth Gowen, who both put in confident and challenging contributions in what was their first meeting, if the Labour Party has a future then I believe it will be well served by letting young Cllrs like Gareth and Elizabeth off the leash as often as possible.

However the high and low point of the evenings political muse must go to Cllr John Yates, the only person in the chamber to have served in the last and the new administration, Questioned by Labours Winston Strachan on a pet subject of mine from the past, RATS, Winston informed Yatesy that an increase in the rat population had become apparent in the town centre and asked him if the Council, who sacked its rat catcher in 2009 and closed the Pest Control department soon after, would reinstate both.

"Let me tell the Councillor that I know all about rats" Said Yatesy "I keep chickens and they are attracted to them" and then he made the most extraordinary comment which should have been the headline in today's Chronicle and Echo when he suggested "People should do as I do and go down B&Q and buy some strong rat poison"

So there we have it, caring conservatism, the Big Society, in the absence of a town rat catcher and a rise in the rat population as a result, Northampton's hard working council tax payers should become more involved in civic matters by spending our dwindling disposable income down at our local B&Q on rat poison to chuck around the Market Square to help NBC to banish the vermin!!

A shocking response to be given to both a disturbing and very important question by the opposition, unfortunately for us all, nobody came back at him and having easily drawn out the worst side of the new administration the combined opposition let him off the ropes.

We can be wait to see if this incredulous suggestion from Northampton Conservative Group does reach the pages of the Chron in days to come.

Its a rat trap NBC and you've been caught

Following yesterdays post on NBC,s astonishing dereliction of duty in respect of local pest control I looked deeper into what was and was not agreed by the Council when it set its budget in February 2009.

In appendix 7 of the budget report which identified cuts (sorry, service reductions) it identifies the following £10,000 saving "Introduce full pest control charges except for rat treatment. Subsidised fees for those in receipt of benefits will stop for treatment of mice and insects"

So we voted for a service, albeit with some charges? and my constituent with a rat infestation irrespective of him being on benefit should have recieved a free service, right?

Well wrong according to the Council, you see another saving was identified below the above which read as follows "saving £29,980 - cease pest control provision by direct contract when current contract ends in 2009/10 - additional savings to above"

Which means what exactly? Cease provision by direct contract? does that mean we will provide by non direct contract? which means what?

And when you look at the list of agreed charges for 2009/10 also set in the budget and voted on by Councillors in February it lists all the various charges for pest control including "Rats - Free" and tell us that "Prices for 2009/10 are "subject to tender July 2010."

Any sensible person would suggest that all the above means that we may go out to tender and the service may not be directly provided in the future. But not that the service is to be scrapped altogether and that residents will simply be told to use the yellow pages!

This is dishonest budgeting and it is disreputable for the council to scrap the service without proper authority by Council or proper explanation to councillors.

Someone therefore has some explaining to do.

One bit of good news though. I spoke to Ray Weaver, Managing Director of Pest Express in Corby who up until July was the Councils contractor, to ask him what he would charge me to pay my constituent a visit to help him. (I don't make a habit of doing this, but it did seem a good use of my council expenses) Ray said, he would do it for free for me. So 5 stars to them (there phone number if you ever need them is 0800 542 67271)

Pest Express offer a service to a number of local authorities and are a "preferred supplier" to many others including North Norfolk District Council who had also closed their in house service, and they offer discounts to benefit recipients.

I still hold out that rat infestations should be treated for free by the council in order to prevent a wider habitation, and I will fight for the service to be reinstated, But why can't NBC at least give a direction to people when they phone them up instead of effectively saying "phone around a dozen companies yourself until you find a company willing to give you a reduction?" phoning around is not cheap either when you are on benefits.

So top marks to Pest Express, and no marks at all for NBC, and a huge row brewing as to what exactly we did vote for in full council at the budget meeting in February.

But one resident in Semilong at least can hopefully get a bit more sleep knowing his house will eventually be rat free.

The real rats are at the Guildhall

An ex sailor contacted me today from St Andrews Road in Northampton, desperate for help because his house has been overrun with rats!

Several mild winters, his proximity to the river via Millers Meadow and refuse sacks being placed on the street days before collection have made him and his family a target for hordes of rattus norvegicus, and his is rightly concerned of the damage this could have on the health of his two young children (10 months and 2 yrs) and his disabled partner. Being an ex sailor he understands very well the dangers of Weil's disease and his weekly shopping bill has also increased by the need for him to disinfect all the surfaces in the kitchen prior to cooking.

The trouble for my constituent though is that he is living on benefit because his wife is disabled, and he is the main carer for their two young children, so money is tight. So he phoned the council in a cry for help to reduce the infestation. He has also tried domestic rat poison but to no avail. So in desperation he rung the council.

"Can't help you" came the reply, "budget cuts"

As of April 1st 2009 the Liberal Democrat council has withdrawn its free service to those on benefits to save a few bob. But as many of us predicted would happen, it is not those who can afford to call out a pest control operative at £65 a time that would suffer, it is those who can't afford a private service that are being placed in the front line.

What sort of false economy is this? I can understand to a degree reductions in any subsidised service for those who can afford to pay, but by the council not dealing with infestations in houses where the option of a paid service is not a realistic expectation then all they will do is make the problem harder to deal with in the general area and spread the colony.

Local Authorities have a duty under section 2 of the "Prevention of Damage by pests act 1949" to take action to ensure any infestation is avoided and dealt with, but it seems that our friendly Liberal Democrats at the Guildhall believe that their duty ends at serving notices and fines to householders irrespective as to whether or not they can afford to take action themselves. How about some action being taken against Network Rail? or the Environment Agency? or Anglian Water? or even themselves for cutting back on treatment on their own land?

Surely it is in the whole community's interest for them to take collective action as a local authority in such circumstances? They must act NOW!

Day by day, week by week the real problems facing people everyday as a result of the massive cuts implemented by the Liberal DemocRATS at the Town Hall are being revealed, supplys of black bins are in very scarse supply and not being delivered to residents on time, street sweeping has been reduced, flytipping out of control, grass not being cut as regular as it was turning the roadside into the new "wildlife areas" so trumpeted by the portfolio holder at the time the cuts were sold to us as service improvements.

So how will they sell this one? Free Pets for hard up families with under fives?

So today I am calling on them to get real for once, and accept that this crazy, ill thought out policy needs badly reviewing and changing immediately before the problem escalates into a real infestation, with real health consequences for local residents. I don't think the rats mind one bit whose house they infest? and once they are in one house they can breed far more easily in the warm, and then move in next door, and so on.

What would the cost be of reinstating a free service for those on benefits? or even a subsidised service at an affordable level? And what will be the cost of them not doing so?