The key headline of the budget speech is the 2.5% Council Tax rise, the lowest ever, along with the message that Central Government funding is decreasing dramatically. This can only mean one thing, huge cuts to public services.

At first glance, things don’t look too bad but the apparently modest cuts disguise additional pressures over the next four years including inflation, a pensions shortfall and demographic changes. Increasing numbers of primary school children means more classes, requiring significant capital expenditure and more dramatic cuts elsewhere.

There are also big hits to planned capital programmes. The capital budget will be reduced from £145m to £85m by 2013/14. Therefore many planned “non essential” programmes are under threat. New school accommodation would be “essential” for example as there is a legal requirement to provide the places needed, whereas library refurbishments and local highways improvements such as crossings are likely to be scrapped.

Here are highlights of some of the more significant cuts over the next four years, although no areas escape unscathed

• 40% reduction in bus subsidies
• Reduction in transport for children Special Educational Needs
• Cuts to Youth Services including frontline youth workers and pregnancy advisory services
• 50% cut in the road repairs budget, and a big reduction in local budgets for local safety schemes etc
• Pay freeze for council staff
• Cuts in climate change budget

Surrey is not unique of course and all Local Authorities are under pressure to cut spending but I think that SCC has gone further than it needs to for three reasons:

• Assumptions of reduction in central government funding are “worst case” and may not materialise. Not all similar councils have made the same assumptions and some cuts may prove to be unnecessary (but I wouldn’t expect planned cuts to be re-instated if so!)
• Surrey has been judged to have high unit costs and needs to make better use of its resources. It needs to reduce its reliance on agency staff and consultants which cost over £24m last year
• Council Tax could have been raised. Although 2.5% is a good headline, it is worth considering that a 1% Council tax rise provides around £5.3m in extra revenue budget for the Council. To put this into perspective, this amount would fund approximately £50m of capital expenditure.

The Conservative leadership blames Gordon Brown for all of this, but David Cameron is promising even greater cuts in public spending!

The Environment Select Committee have finally considered the 10:10 motion I raised back in October and made their recommendations to Full Council yesterday.

Signing up to 10:10 would be a commitment by the Council to reduce its own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010

When I raised the motion, just 16 councils had signed up to 10:10 but over 100 have since followed suit including Mole Valley and Reigate and Banstead.

In spite of the best efforts of Will Forster, our Environment Spokesperson who sits on the committee, the recommendation was that the Council should not sign up to the campaign as it “would detract resources from achieving the targets within the sustainable Surrey Climate Change Strategy.

Considering one of the stated aims of this strategy is to “increase the profile and show leadership on climate change activities”, 10:10 would be an ideal vehicle to help promote the Council’s work in this area, rather than detract from it in any way. 10:10 councils can use the 10:10 brand to help promote their environmental policies and are recognised as being among the most proactive organisations in reducing emissions.

Surrey County Council is going to have to face up to its responsibilities soon. The Carbon Reductions Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme becomes effective in April 2010 which will require Local Authorities to measure and reduce their emissions. There will be rewards for those who succeed, with penalties for bad performance and failure to report. In the budget which was under discussion today, there is an allowance for the maximum penalty to be imposed indicating that the leadership expect Surrey to be among the lower performing Councils.

At the moment I don’t think SCC have sufficient data to report their emissions and I suspect this is one of the real reasons that they don’t want to have anything to do with 10:10.

Been desperate to attend County Hall for meetings of the Full Council but just couldn’t find the time? Probably not, but Full Council meetings are now being filmed and webcast so you can watch whenever you like from the comfort of your own home.

The first to be filmed was the meeting on 15th December 2009, the next will be the Budget meeting on Feb 9th 2010.

If you want to see a specific item there is a handy index feature so you can jump to the part of the meeting you are interested in.

What a waste

A hotly anticipated announcement on the new waste strategy was expected at this Full Council meeting in December .

Although it had been clear since June that the new administration had abandoned plans for its mass burn incinerator at Capel, only the Cabinet were privy to the proposed alternative until now.

I was shocked to learn that an announcement was to be made to the press before the meeting and therefore before any opposition councillors were aware of the plans, a fact Hazel objected to in the meeting but was rebuffed with the comment that this was “standard practice”.

An “eco park” consisting of anaerobic digestion and gasification plants is proposed, capable of dealing with 40,000 and 60,000 tonnes of waste respectively along with an education centre.

As far as the technology is concerned, this is broadly in line with what the Lib Dems have been suggesting for some time, however the location is more controversial with many suspicious that Surrey’s waste is being dumped on the least affluent (and least Conservative) parts of the county

You can see the official press release on the SCC website and Diana Smith has already written in some detail about this on her blog

On the Buses

Also of great importance today are the items relating to the bus review about which I had a number of questions and a motion tabled.

Surrey is undergoing a thorough review of its subsidised bus services, and routes in Reigate and Banstead could be axed or reduced in 2010. Services under threat include the 324, sections of the 430/435 routes and the school specials. Many residents are understandably devastated by the prospect of losing these services and I have been very vocal in supporting their opposition to the cuts.

Although the main aim of the review is to cut subsidies, the Council leadership claim that “residents have asked SCC to review the service as they are concerned about the level of empty buses travelling around Surrey”.

“Exactly how many residents had expressed such a concern?” was one of my questions to Ian Lake, the Cabinet Member for Transport.

Quite simply I didn’t believe that there were many, if any. I have received a lot of comments from residents about bus services and nobody has ever raised this as an issue.

The answer, a “number” of residents was too vague but I could get nothing more specific on further questioning. I did however receive an assurance that this was a genuine consultation and that more emphasis would be placed on the views of bus users, rather than non users who object to funding bus services.

A lively debate on our motion opposing bus cuts followed (including the Pegasus School bus service which has already been axed). I spoke specifically about the level of opposition to the cuts in the last few weeks, the petitions and calls I have received, and the Surrey Mirror “Save the 324” campaign that I have been supporting.

As expected not a single Conservative supported the motion or even abstained.

Let’s hope that this really is a true consultation and that the Council take notice of the level of opposition to the cuts. If you haven’t already done so, please make your views known to the Council.

Today’s Council meeting was the first opportunity for the full council to discuss the Frater Report on the Council’s failings since its discussion by cabinet and there were no less than 3 motions on this important topic.

It was also a key meeting for me as I had tabled my first motion asking the Council to sign up to the much publicised national 10:10 campaign which would commit the Council to reduce its carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.

27 councils have already formally committed to this initiative as have all the main party leaders and their cabinets, and both the Lib Dem and Labour leadership are asking all their councils to adopt motions to sign up to the campaign.

Motioners need to come prepared for debate although under the constitution the Council may vote to refer the matter to Cabinet or Select Committee. However this will not generally be known before the meeting as the proposal to refer is a decision by the leader.

Unusually in this case, Dr Povey contacted the Lib Dem leader on Sunday night asking us to withdraw the motion and wait until a fuller debate on Climate Change might be possible on some unspecified future date. We were told that if we didn’t agree then the motion would be referred to a sub committee for later consideration in any case.

The 10:10 campaign is about a commitment to action now and we therefore declined the request.

A referral to committee was proposed as expected, allowing me only a 2 minute statement as to why the motion should be debated.

Despite being supported by the Independents, the Conservative majority (controlled by the whip) voted against a debate.

This appears to be a blatant attempt to bury the motion until nearer the General Election when the Conservatives can try and claim credit for taking action on Climate Change.

What is so deeply dissatisfying is that this goes against Dr Povey’s own stated commitment to placing issues sustainability and climate change at the top of the agenda, for the sake of political gamesmanship.

The Conservatives control the agenda to their advantage and stifle any debate when it doesn’t suit them.

If you are interested, the full speech gives a bit more information on the idea behind 10:10:

Many Members will already be aware of the 10:10 campaign and its aims.

For those who are not, the 10:10 Campaign was started by Franny Armstrong, director of the film “Age Of Stupid”, as a mass movement to sign up people, businesses and organisations all over Britain to commit to reducing carbon emissions by 10% by 2010.

10:10 has been endorsed by the government and the main party leaders, including David Cameron.

I am asking this council to formally sign up to the 10:10 campaign, joining the councils, businesses, politicians and individuals who have already done so, and to become a pioneering council in the fight against climate change.

27 Councils so far have committed to 10:10 including Richmond, Camden,Islington, Nottingham, Oxford, Cambridge and Coventry and this number is rising rapidly.

Gordon Brown and his cabinet have already committed, as have the entire Liberal Democrat and Conservative shadow cabinets.

In his first speech as leader, Dr Povey stated that he wanted Surrey County Council to become a leading, world class, innovative and compassionate authority which ‘spent more time thinking about sustainability and climate change’.

In his first report to cabinet he stated that “Sustainability and taking action to prevent climate change must … play a key part of the Council’s agenda, cutting across all our strategies and services.”

But it seems he doesn’t actually want to discuss it.

The 10:10 campaign is about action now, not at some unspecified time in the future when politically expedient for the Conservatives.

We must debate this motion today.

The Frater Report

Following the award of just one star to Surrey County Council by OFSTED in 2008, Chief Executive Michael Frater was brought in for a temporary period to examine why the Council had failed so spectacularly. In July this year he presented his findings to Cabinet in what is now imaginatively referred to as “The Frater Report”, a damning indictment of the Council’s performance containing allegations of incompetence, bullying and poor governance.

This was the first opportunity for discussion of the report and 3 motions were proposed.

Liberal Democrat leader Hazel Watson submitted a motion criticizing the “burying” of the report by the new leadership, proposing that there should be a measurable action plan to address the issues, open to scrutiny by all members of the Council.

Independent Eber Kington’s motion was a request for a full and open debate by the whole Council.

Finally , Conservative Deputy Leader David Hodge had raised a motion asking the Council to agree how well the new administration was doing in addressing the problems highlighted. This is really an audacious attempt by the Conservatives to get some good PR rather than for the purposes of a real debate and is a fairly common way for the majority party to use the motion process.

Again, before the meeting Hazel and Eber had been asked to consider whether they would merge their motions with the Conservative one, a blatant and frankly outrageous attempt to shift the debate to suit their own agenda.

Hazel’s motion was put to debate to some peoples surprise, as was David Hodge’s to no ones, but Eber Kington’s motion was referred.

The debates were lively but it was evident that the leader and his deputy are completely unable to accept any criticism from the opposition and arrogantly maintain all is now well with the Council.
David Hodge has a particularly cocky manner, dismissing any critical comments as ridiculous.

They claim the new leadership has nothing to do with the problems of the past, conveniently overlooking the fact that much of the current administration was part of the original problem.

Although the situation is showing signs of improvement, it was rightly pointed out that it was this arrogance on the part of the ruling administration and its propensity to stifle any opposition that caused a lot of the problems in the first place.

I attended a very interesting seminar entitled “Gypsy and Traveller Awareness” yesterday, intended to educate Councillors on the history and culture of these much maligned and misunderstood minorities.

It looked at how Gypsies and Travellers are affected by National and Council policies, at the difficulties they have gaining acceptance by the settled community and in accessing the services that the rest of us take for granted such as education and law enforcement.

One recent policy change that had a particular impact was that related to a ban on cold-calling which had a huge impact on the ability of Gypsies to earn a living in the traditional way. While the community was happy to adapt, a lack of consultation and communication meant that a lot of Gypsies were found to be breaking the law having not been informed of the changes.

Some of the myths surrounding Gypsies were also addressed, for example there is a perception of an increase in criminal behaviour when Gypsies move into an area which the crime statistics do not support.

Equally interesting was the reaction by certain Members who seemed to use the session to spout their less than liberal invective against the Community with a great deal of not so subtle tut-tutting about “Political Correctness gone mad”.

However I was pleasantly surprised by the enlightened views of some Conservatives who seemed embarassed by the offensive behaviour of their less progressive colleagues and even apologised to the Lib Dems present after the meeting!

One of the criticisms levelled at the Council by interim Chief Executive Michael Frater was of bullying carried out by both Members and Officers.

In an interview with the Surrey Mirror reported today, our new leader Dr Andrew Povey asserted the widely discredited myth that “It is a delicate balancing act between being a tough manager and a bully”.

Bullying is nothing to do with tough management, it is bad management. Bullies are deeply insecure people, lacking management skills who bully to hide their own shortcomings.

How can the Council hope to eliminate bullying if our leader cannot tell the difference?

Today was the first Full Council meeting following the appointment of the new leader and cabinet. In the 2 previous Lib Dem group meetings we had agreed on questions to raise and motions to propose.

Questions are submitted a few days before the meeting and writen answers are circulated the day before. At the meeting the questioners are then called to ask any related supplementary questions if not satisfied with the answers provided.

Question Time

I had tabled my first question in response to the comments at the first meeting by outgoing Chair Angela Fraser regarding Equality and Diversity

The Surrey County Council Equality and Diversity policy states ‘Our elected members are responsible for acting in accordance with this equality and diversity policy and supporting the organisation to promote inclusion in our day to day practices. Committees have a role in overseeing and ensuring the implementation of the equality schemes and action plans’.

Does the leader believe it is appropriate for a Member who has publicly stated at full council that they do not believe in Health and Safety or Equality and Diversity to serve as a Council representative on the Surrey Police Authority, or indeed on any of the the Surrey County Council Committees?”

I received the following rather unsatisfactory answer from the Leader, Dr Povey

“I strongly believe that treating residents and staff fairly, and looking after their health and safety , is a key role for the County Council. I am sure all Members of this Council would subscribe to this and apply it in their roles in committees of the County Council and the Police Authority.”

I had planned to ask a supplementary question asking what action the leader would take if a member were to publicly disagree with the policy, but the Chairman announced that Mrs Fraser wished to make a statement.

She claimed that she was “emotional” during the last meeting, that she was fully committed to the principles of Health and Safety and Equality and Diversity after all and apologised unreservedly for any offence caused by her comments.

Under the circumstances I thought my point had been made to good effect so decided rest my case!

There were good questions from other Lib Dems including new member Will Forster regarding support of a Surrey wide Credit Union, from Stephen Cooksey challenging the justification of the reduction in size of Select Committees without consultation, from Hazel Watson concerning the publication of members overnight allowances, and from Colin Taylor on a bodged intervention by SCC into a catering contract at Nonsuch Park.

From the Residents Association, new member Eber Kington had 3 questions and managed to weave some scathing attacks on the leadership into his supplementaries; quite the performer and very eloquent in his own way.

Only one question from the Tories, although really it was more sycophantic statement than question, allowing the leader to agree and effuse on what a great place Surrey would be as a base for the Olympic teams in 2012.

All questions and full minutes can be read in full on the SCC website although they don’t reflect the atmosphere on the chamber, nor do they include the frequent side swipes (mainly against the Lib Dems) which some members seem to enjoy incorporating into their statements.

“Going through the motions”

I wasn’t expecting quite the level of personal animosity from the Conservatives towards the Lib Dems during the debate on the motion proposed by Lib Dem leader Hazel Watson, who moved that the Council agree that the budget planning and preparation must be started and completed earlier in the financial year and that the process be improved in future.

Given that the interim Chief Executive Michael Frater in his criticisms of the Council had stated that “… medium term planning and budgeting…is ill developed, and unsustainable… It is not based on a strategy, on priorities or on need…It is not corporate nor is it sustainable. I have not seen an approach as unsophisticated as this in my entire career” , it is clear that there are deficiencies in the process which need to be addressed.

Quite a few members spoke in the debate, with many merely taking the opportunity to make some rather spurious and vicious attacks on the Lib Dems and to venture how wonderful life would be with a Conservative government rather than addressing the real issue.

Tony Rooth (Con, Shalford) made a fairly tortuous point about how Lib Dems were always pressing for a reduction in waste and moving too many motions, going on to say how the Council should “reduce its rubbish” (the Lib Dems), “introduce rationing” (of Lib Dem motions) , ending by saying how we were “just going through the motions” to a collective groan from both sides the chamber.

He also reiterated the common complaint that Surrey was an underfunded council, speculating that this would change with a Conservative government. As Chris Townsend (Independent, Ashtead) pointed out, it is doubtful that a Conservative government would provide any more funding and reminded Mr Rooth that Michael Frater’s opinion is that Surrey is actually quite well funded (as a “floor” authority it gets more money from Formula Grant than the formula alone would provide) and that the Conservatives should stop using this as an excuse for all its failings.

Michael Gosling (Con, Banstead South) also had a dig at the Lib Dems, implying that while the Cabinet were busy working on the budget, the Lib Dems must have all been “lazing around in bed as usual”! I might have been outraged if it hadn’t been such a fatuous insult.

Hazel summed up asking the Council to accept the motion in the spirit intended, pointed out that the Lib Dems had regularly criticized the process in the past, and gave evidence that other County Councils prepare their budgets much earlier and more effectively.

Unsurprisingly the motion was defeated although unusually the RA’s voted with the Lib Dems, adding strength to the argument. I am told that the Conservatives hate it when this happens!

Short and Sweet

As these meetings apparently tend to drag on, everybody in the chamber was noticably surprised that today’s meeting finished early. My more experienced colleagues are of the view that the Conservatives have, in the past, been quite divided and therefore there had previously been more questioning and challenging of the Executive by this “internal” opposition. There was no evidence of this today.

Either they are giving the new Leadership a chance, they are more united, or maybe new members are simply sitting on the sidelines in the early stages of the new Council. It will be interesting to see how things develop.

Lunch

There was no formal lunch today but we retired to the Mess to discuss the events of the morning. There had been plans for a “Council of 2009” photo session in the afternoon but these were scrapped due to the use of County Hall as a film set which is apparently a fairly regular occurrence.

 Today is the first meeting of the full council. I have been assured that this will be a dull, routine affair but to me it proves quite the opposite. As a new Councillor I may not have fully grasped some of the subtext of the meeting, so you may also wish to have a look at the insightful posting of a more experienced Lib Dem Councillor, Diana Smith, on her blog.

Religion and Politics

I am surprised to see that the meeting starts with prayers which a few of us (all Lib Dems!) legitimately decline to attend, and there is a pause to allow us to enter once these are over and done with.

Mr Speaker

The main business of the day is to elect the new Council Chair, the new Leader of the Council, the Cabinet, and the Select Committee Chairs and members.

First up is the election of the new Chair, Geoff Marlowe (after some back slapping speeches about what wonderful a chap he is) who then proceeds to run the meeting, followed by similar for the new Vice Chair Lavinia Sealy. Although the Chair is selected by the Conservatives, his role is rather like that of the Speaker of the House of Commons and is apolitical.

Good old Tory values

More interesting was the speech by the outgoing Chair, Angela Fraser, after more congratulatory speeches from other members about her achievements. At one point in her speech, in relation to an event she attended hosted by the Young Mariners she stated “I don’t believe in health and safety and I don’t believe in equality and diversity” going on to imply that she believed that once there was a change in Government these things would be stopped!

At this point many of us turn to our neighbours in disbelief, “Did she really just say that?”.

It is comments like this that reinforce all my prejudices about Conservatives, and make a mockery of David Cameron’s claims that the Conservative Party is the party of progress.

She then goes on to quote from the bible about the falling of divided kingdoms, presumably analogous to the Council in some way!

The Dear Leader

The big event of the day is the election of the new Leader (effectively the Council Prime Minister), Dr Andrew Povey. The old leader Nick Skellet is noticeable by his absence; whether this reflects divisions in the party I do not know but it seems likely from what I have heard.

As a group, we had already decided it was futile to vote against Dr Povey, but we didn’t want to back his election either, so had agreed to abstain. In fact there is just one dissenting voice from the Residents Association Group in the form of new Member Eber Kington who reminded the Council that Surrey was the ‘worst council in England’ and that no apology had been offered for the previous failures in leadership.

A great intervention to liven up proceedings which seems to take most of the chamber by surprise!

Dr Povey then begins his speech setting out his vision and objectives for the new Council, the official report on which is on the SCC website.

Under the new Leader/Cabinet model of local government, the Leader has considerable powers. The leader is able to reserve powers to himself alone and he proceeded to state that he would retain veto powers in 3 areas, namely changes to boundaries of the Green Belt, decisions to open or close a school, and recruitment of highly paid (over £100k) officers.

Interestingly Dr Povey also announces that all cabinet members have to undergo Equality and Diversity training so perhaps Angela Fraser’s earlier remarks were a dig at Dr Povey’s apparently more progressive stance on the issue.

He proceeds to lay out some of his ideas and priorities for his term including speeding and zero based budgeting, while sustainability and climate change also get a look in.

In terms of hard policy commitments, the introduction of £1500 bursaries for students studying for social work qualifications is announced, which are also available to existing social workers to improve their skills. This initiative has been subsequently welcomed by external professional bodies and seems like a good idea to me (confirmed by the fact that Conservative blogs seem to think this makes Dr Povey a raving socialist).

He also stated an intent for SCC to abandon its reliance on “Energy from Waste” (commonly perceived to mean incineration but this is not the only method), to improve recycling and to implement world class waste disposal technology although there were no concrete plans on how this would be achieved.

Proportional Representation

I have talked about the statement of proportionality relating to Committee places before and it is at this meeting that this is put to the vote. 100% of members must be in agreement for this to pass so we could be awkward, but as we have been offered more seats than strictly required we decide to vote in favour.

The membership of the committees is then put to a vote but by now this is a formality in most cases and I am adopted onto the Schools and Learning Committee as expected.

However there have been some shenanigans regarding the Mole Valley Local Committee on which it was previously agreed we would have a Lib Dem Vice Chair. We learned just before the meeting that this was being contested and that a Conservative had also been put forward for the position. Although Hazel had strong words about this as a breach of promise by the opposition, unfortunately this had to go to the vote and no surprises who won!

Lunch

After a few questions and wrapping up a very good 3 course lunch with wine was served in the Ashcombe Room, followed by a speech from the High Sherriff of Surrey. I am not sure I approve of the expense incurred but it was a very enjoyable meal and a good chance to reflect with fellow Councillors on our experiences of the first few weeks!

The second induction day is much more comprehensive in giving us an overview of the Council.

There are presentations throughout the day and a ‘Marketplace’ of all the Directorates was set up in the Grand Hall where we could meet with Officers and discuss any specific issues that had come up with residents. As residents have already contacted me on a variety of issues including roads, schools and health this was very helpful.

Presentations included an introduction from the Interim Chief Executive who mainly spoke about his view of the reasons why Surrey was recently rated one star (see his report to cabinet on the SCC site), and then from the Directors of Environment and Infrastructure, Children, Schools and Families, Customers and Communities, Adult Social Care and Corporate Services.

I learned that County Councillors have two additional responsibilities that I was not aware of, firstly that we all are legally Corporate parents for “Looked After” children in Surrey, and secondly that we are responsible for appointing certain School Governors for all Maintained Schools in our Divisions.

Lunch is provided in the “County Mess”, the dining room for Members and Senior Officers. Members can eat there free if at County Hall on Council business but not all Members do. The place does have the feel of an Old Boys club; jacket and tie required, and convention demands that if dining without guests, you must take the next available seat on the “Fellowship Table” rather than choosing who you wish to eat with. However today this rule wasn’t in operation and the Lib Dem Group is just the right size for a table of its own.

After lunch we retired to the Council Chamber for the first time to receive the Code of Conduct Training, quite rightly compulsory for all Members. Especially important are the issues of Personal and Prejudicual interests and learning to recognise when such interests arise, when they need to be declared, and when such interests preclude a Member from voting or participating in a debate or decision.

After all the excitement of winning the election, Monday, the day the Councillors elect formally take office, comes around very quickly. After all the years of campaigning for office, its quite sobering , slightly daunting but rather exciting to find yourself on the steps of County Hall prepared for the first day on the job.

New councillors have a lot to learn, but fortunately the first couple of weeks are filled with a variety of induction events and training sessions, as well as with meetings in our political groupings in order to begin to prepare us for the next 4 years.

The main event on the first morning is the undertaking of the formal ‘Declaration of Acceptance of Office’, the remainder of the morning is for general administration and welcome presentations from the Chairman of the Council as well as experienced Councillors and Officers. It is also a time for us to introduce ourselves to some of the Council Officers and other Members (as Councillors are called).

The individual members of party groups naturally gravitate to each other and in spite of our local victory, it is abundantly clear that the Liberal Democrats are vastly outnumbered by the 56 Conservatives – but at least we are 13; Labour have just one seat which is officially not even enough to be considered a political grouping at all. The other main group consists of the 10 Residents Association or Independent Councillors.

I am pleased to note that I am considered ‘young’ at 41; in fact I believe I am the 3rd or 4th youngest County Councillor, although the youngest , also a Lib Dem, is just 22.

In the afternoon Liberal Democrat group have an initial meeting to deal with some internal party admin and most importantly, to express initial preferences as to which Select Committees we would like to serve on. All committees are required to be politically balanced in proportion to the make up of the Council as a whole, i.e we should get 13/80ths of all places. However, at this point it is not clear how large the committees are and therefore how many places will be available, but there are concerns that we will not be offered as many places on some important committees as we would like. As our representation on Select Committees is one of the main ways the opposition parties or groups have any chance of influencing policy, it is very important for us (and indeed for the democratic process) that all are properly represented.