29/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

Attend a meeting organised by the Citizens Advice Bureau in Cambridge.  It is a key local service - 1 in 10 of the population in Fenland has used the Citizens Advice Bureau in the last 12 months (1 in 25 across Cambridgeshire as a whole).  The difficulty faced in Cambridgeshire is that funding nationally is based on aggregate need, which does not reflect the real pockets of deprivation within parts of the County.

A number of important issues were highlighted by Linda Hutchinson, Bureau Manager of the Fenland Citizens Advice Bureau who superbly presented their challenges and the steps being taken in a thoughtful and clear way.  Those seeking advice come from all backgrounds, with increasing number of managers now facing problems with rising debts.  In fact the two most frequent issues raised are debt and employment entitlement, which can be confusing for those who have never claimed before.  Other common challenges are including housing, fuel debt, and older people not claiming benefits to which they are entitled.

A chance also at the meeting to briefly catch up with Caroline Bosworth who chairs the Ely CAB, and Kevan Brenchley, the Barclays Local Business Area Manager.  What is clear in Fenland, Ely and across Cambridgeshire is how the recession is adding to demand for CAB support - there have been 8,000 enquiries received across Cambridgeshire in just the first three months of this year.  Demand in Fenland is up 8.6% on last year.  Despite this huge demand for their services, they reveal that their core funding has declined in real terms.

Funding remains the key concern looking forward. The Government has given a loan for a new advice hub being built in Devonshire Road in Cambridge but this is not a grant.  As so often with this Government, the spending is today but the bill will have to be paid tomorrow.  As Lord Wilson who introduced the meeting pointed out, Government cuts next year will be the worst he has known in his career whoever wins the election.  As the former Head of the Civil Service, it is a sobering assessment.

The meeting highlighted not just the problems but also the successes of the CAB.  It helps ease tensions which might otherwise lead to depression, marital breakdown, or the loss of the family home.  In fact just in Fenland 131 people have avoided losing their homes as a result of their representation in court.  Sadly as Lord Wilson pointed out, the challenges of rising unemployment will not end at the same time as the recession but are expected to continue for some time to come.  Nor will bank lending suddenly return, without which businesses will find it difficult to expand and take on more jobs.

Whilst the CAB is not the sole source of advice, with local law firms in some areas providing pro bono work, they are the key facilitator in ensuring that the correct advice is received.  The meeting was a great way of getting their message across.  It started on time, finished on time, was very well chaired, and full of interesting and thought provoking information.  A very useful meeting.

Posted in Citizens Advice Bureau, Barclays Bank | No Comments »

27/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

Chatting in the bakers in Littleport early Saturday morning is a great way to find out what is going on.  One issue mentioned is the war memorial opposite the church which needs cleaning.  I pop over to have a look and they are absolutely right.  It needs sorting out, not least with Remembrance Sunday only a month away.  Take a photo and email it to East Cambs Council asking if they would give it a clean.

Then join Littleport campaigners Debra Jordan and Louise Brighton who have a stall in the High Steet.  They are doing a great job in highlighting the cuts in our paramedic cover.  The East of England Ambulance Trust has a poor record - buying Ambulances that are too tall to go under the bridge at Ely Station is just one of their recent mistakes wasting money.  It is no wonder that the Healthcare Commission rates them one of the six worst NHS trusts in England.  Moving a paramedic car to Cambridge (which has a hospital) and away from a rural area (miles away from the nearest hospital) is another mistake.

Great response to the stall in the High Street where shoppers are asked to deliver the leaflet to the street they live in.  Louise phones me later in the day to say that all the leaflets went out within three and a half hours!  Thanks to everyone that helped.

Steve Barclay with Littleport campaigners
Debra Jordan (left) and Louise Brighton (right)

Then head over to the other end of the constituency for two more of my regular series of coffee meetings with residents I have not met before.  In both a key concern is planning.  The Government’s obsession with people building in back gardens is causing a lot of resentment (and adding to problems with flooding).  There is also concern that planning permission is being given to new buildings in architectural styles that do not fit with the other buildings.  We need to ensure we protect the charm of our Fenland towns and I share their concern. 

Another issue raised is the George Hotel and the Old Post Office which is still boarded up.  This has gone on for far too long, and is an eyesore at the heart of Whittlesey.  I know Cllr Martin Curtis is working hard on this and shares my desire for action to sort it out.  I will find out what the latest is with Wetherspoons who own the George.

George Hotel which remains boarded up

Other ad hoc issues are raised in the meetings, and I will discuss this with local councillors to see if we can work together on a solution.  One example is cars parked around the Falcon pub, where the yellow lines could perhaps do with being extended and a mirror could be installed to help with visibility given the blind spot on the corner.

Finally on the way home I thought I should check whether the issue with the war memorial in Littleport also applies in Fenland.  The Whittlesey memorial does not look too bad although it would still benefit from a clean.  A call to the British Legion puts me in touch with Steve Napier at Fenland DC to flag this to him.

Whittlesey War Memorial

Posted in Littleport, Whittlesey | No Comments »

25/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

I suspect we will see a surge in last minute Government contracts being signed early next year before the General Election. Ministers can then claim credit for any success from these projects in the future, whilst the cost attached is picked up by the next Government. It will also allow them to cite these projects when trying to justify the massive debt already incurred. As many of these ministers are also about to lose their seat and so will soon be looking for work, they may also be tempted to curry favour with a potential future employer.

Firms seeking Government contracts will also be in on this.  The next Government‘s Ministers starting their careers will often delay signing new deals until they have had time to understand their departments.  Even if they want to sign, an emergency budget straight after the election will likely tie their hands and require quick cuts (even “savage cuts“ in the very unlikely event that the Lib Dem leader gets his fantasy of playing Prime Minister).  Firms will therefore push to bring forward any Government contracts whilst the current minister is still at their desk. 

The loser will be the taxpayer (again).  We will all have to pay for these contracts signed in haste, by ministers heading for the exit door.  It is not the best environment in which to negotiate a hard bargain.  Expect them to sign quickly whilst they still can, further increasing the error in the Government‘s debt forecast.  Last year the Government forecast they would borrow £40 billion this year.  It now looks like being £200 billion - more than five times an estimate made only last year.  How much will be on the country‘s credit card by the end of their last minute dash to the shops?

Posted in Labour Failure | No Comments »

24/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

Why is the decision to cut our paramedic cover being made by people who are both unelected themselves and not answerable to an elected body?  Why is there so much confusion over exactly who is making this decision and why?  Is it too much to ask that residents in Littleport, Sutton and Little Downham get a straight answer when their lives could be put a risk by a reduction in paramedic cover?

The East of England Ambulance Trust covers Essex, Sussex, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. It is so large nobody seems to know what is going on.  As one secretary just said to me on the phone, “we are so big now we don’t know everyone anymore and it does not always link up.“ 

Even a straightforward question as to where the Chief Executive is based does not get a straight answer.  The Head Office is in Bury St Edmonds (or at least that is where the Chief Executive‘s PA is located), but most of the time the senior managers I am told are travelling.  The Trust also has offices in Norwich, Bedford, and Essex.  Clearly the tight travel cost controls which apply to those of us working in the private sector don’t apply here.  Why not cut the travel budget and pay for paramedics instead?

Voters have no control over those making these decisions.  Nor do their elected representatives.  East Cambridgeshire District Council Leader Fred Brown is opposed to these cuts.  Our Member of Parliament Malcolm Moss is opposed.  No MEP from any political party has called for these cuts.  And yet a paramedic car has been taken from a rural area, which is a potentially life threatening journey away from the nearest hospital, and moved to Cambridge which has Addenbrooke‘s Hospital on its doorstop.

In theory the East of England Ambulance Trust answers to the Strategic Health Authority, but in practice their remit seems confused (staff at the Ambulance Trust again were unable to set out the grounds for where their respective remits start and stop).  The process is further complicated as their decision are also influenced by the various Primary Care Trusts.  Other decision making bodies are also involved, like Cambridgeshire Horizons.  So many officials and committees, yet still no answers.

Residents in East Cambridgeshire are right to be angry.  They deserve to know who is responsible.  It is easy for me to point to the Government, but the problem runs deeper than that.  Yes Labour‘s national targets play a part, and yes they are to blame for the crazy confused governance structure.  But what is worse is that senior and well paid managers in the Ambulance Trust appear to see accountability to taxpayers paying their salaries as a petty inconvenience treated with disdain. 

If the East of England Ambulance Trust thinks it is immune from effective accountability then they may have a shock after the General Election.  The next Government needs to ensure decisions like this affecting the public are taken by those elected directly by the public, or immediately answerable to elected figures held responsible on their behalf.

Posted in Paramedics, Little Downham, Sutton, Littleport | No Comments »

23/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

A striking feature of a number of public services is how little information there is in the public domain.  Those using a service, and taxpayers paying the bill, have few facts available to assess the quality of the service provided.  After being contacted by a constituent regarding the lack of speech therapy for his child, I have tried to bring a little transparency below on what is happening on this locally.

The Government‘s target is 18 weeks between a referral from a GP to the first treatment.  The longest a child in Cambridgeshire has currently been waiting is 90 weeks for their first speech therapy session.  The average time spent on the waiting list across Cambridgeshire is 30 weeks, three months over the Government‘s target.  60% of children in Cambridgeshire have been on the waiting list longer than the national target. 

A full time speech therapist works 36 or 37 hours a week, of which 80% of their time is clinical including travel time to schools, with 20% involving administration.  There are currently around 42 fully qualified speech therapists in Cambridgeshire, with up to 3,500 children waiting or accessing the speech therapy service.  It is a heavy case load per therapist, with only so many hours for one to one sessions.  The risk is that as resource is moved to bring the waiting list down there will be even less scope for one to one therapy or time with a fully qualified therapist. 

Within North East Cambs, there is one qualified speech therapist covering March and Chatteris, supported by a specialist one day a week and a further therapist 2 days a week.  They have to cover 83 children needing support, with a further 39 children on the waiting list.  34 children in March and Chatteris have been waiting longer than the Government target of 18 weeks from GP referral to their first therapy session.

In Wisbech, there is a full time specialist and a full time assistant, with a further part time therapist.  They have to cover 112 children needing treatment, with a further 30 on the waiting list, of which 9 children in Wisbech have been waiting longer than the Government target.

Despite these pressures on front line services, there is some good news.  Whilst 700 children in Cambridgeshire are currently on the waiting list, last year it was 1,300!  How many people locally were aware last year that 1,300 children were waiting for speech therapy? What does that say about transparency around the delivery of public services?  Such delays matter - not least when a child starts school and is struggling to speak with their teachers and classmates.

Despite as a country now spending over £100 billion a year on the NHS, it is interesting how today many children no longer have access to the benefit of the one to one sessions that used to be the norm.  Instead speech therapy is often delivered via Teaching Assistants who complete a 10 week course with an hour‘s training plus homework, a visit from a speech therapist once a term or every half term, or through work with a therapist in group sessions. I have not yet seen any data on whether a much lower percentage now gain access to one to one treatment with a fully qualified therapist, but the large demand for speech therapy suggests this may be the case. That is not to say that in some cases a group session or the support of a teacher assistant is not sufficient, but one to one support will often be preferred by parents.

It is good news that the waiting list across Cambridgeshire, and locally, has come down over the last year.  Extra funding has helped, although it has not adequately closed the gap with demand.  The average wait before the first treatment of 30 weeks is still far above the Government target and up to 90 weeks in the worst case.  Problems clearly remain in delivery of speech therapy across Cambridgeshire.

As for the case raised with me by the concerned constituent, the good news is that this has now been investigated.  Confirmation has been received today that he does qualify for one to one speech therapy sessions.  There is no explanation as to why despite the clinical need this treatment was not provided at all last year, other than that the service moved on 1^st Sept 2009 from Peterborough to Cambridge.  Moving forward he will now receive the skilled support of a speech therapist attending his school, alongside the attention of a much valued teaching assistant.  It will make a real difference.

More generally, this highlights the challenge we face across the public sector as all political parties now acknowledge the need for significant spending cuts.  The Conservative Party has made it clear that we will increase NHS spending. However there will also be more demand, not least from an older population and expensive new treatments.  The current Government has spent billions which has not been matched by delivery, as shown locally with issues like speech therapy.  Greater transparency is needed to ensure money gets to the front line and is not wasted.  More speech therapists in Fenland and East Cambs are certainly needed, and an NHS budget of over £100 billion should be delivering them. 

Posted in Speech Therapy, NHS, March, Chatteris, Wisbech | No Comments »

22/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

It is really good news to see so many former Lib Dem members now joining the Conservative Party, and a sign of the change taking place in British politics.  Realistically only the Conservatives can end Gordon Brown’s Government.  It makes sense for former Lib Dem members who oppose Labour’s 42 days detection, want to scrap identify cards, and stop a third runway at Heathrow to vote Conservative to make these things happen. 

This shift is also being helped by the Lib Dem Leader himself, who seems increasing confused over the direction of his party’s policy.  At the start of their Party Conference this week the Lib Dem leader said he wanted “savage cuts” on public services and that they would have to scrap their pledge on tuition fees.  Former leader Charles Kennedy contradicted him, as did other senior Lib Dem MPs like Evan Harris.  So now he is saying they may not scrap their pledge on tuition fees after all.  Confused?  If so, don’t try to understand their policy on child benefit - again the Lib Dem Leader said they might introduce means testing of child benefit, before their Work and Pensions spokesman intervened and said there would keep it as it is. 

Unfortunately the Lib Dem leader has form for such confusion over his policy.  After promising a referendum on the European Constitutional treaty in their election manifesto, the Lib Dem Leader then bizarrely imposed a three line whip on his MPs to abstain when the vote took place.  He could not even make up his mind whether to vote yes or no on the most important vote in this Parliament!  Nor is he able to come clean and say what he would do in the future if there is a hung parliament after the next election.  This is the key circumstance when his opinion would really matter, and yet he tells the public it is a secret.  He will decide behind closed doors without telling them before they vote.  How long will it be until the Lib Dem members who are left rebel and install Vince Cable as their new Leader to provide some direction? 

With most current Lib Dem MPs in former Conservative seats, whilst their next generation of Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidates with the best chance of winning are in Labour seats, the tension and confusion over the direction of their policy is likely to get worse.  However after only managing 14% of the vote in the European elections, it is right that Lib Dem members increasingly see the Conservatives as the best way to deliver change on civil liberties, the environment and localism.  These are three key values for many Lib Dem members, and are at the heart of Conservative policy for the 21^st century. 

Any Lib Dem member in North East Cambridgeshire wanting to join us should please get in touch with me.

Posted in Liberal Democrats, Conservative Party | No Comments »

21/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

More worrying news in terms of the cuts in paramedic cover in East Cambridgeshire. 

Thanks to campaigners Louise Brighton and Debra Jordan who flagged to me the figures from the Quality Care Commission.  Not only is the East of England Ambulance Trust failing to consult local people about these changes, but the official figures highlight their record as weak.  They compare badly with the East Midlands, London, and South Central - you can see the figures below and visit the Quality Care Commission website:

http://2008ratings.cqc.org.uk/findcareservices/informationabouthealthcareservices/overallperformance/compareorganisations.cfm?search_type=postcode&trust_type=AMB&postcode=CB6&widCall1=customWidgets.compareorgs_part_4a1

The Government have issued a 75% target for paramedic cars to arrive within 8 minutes.  Moving one of the two paramedic cars to Cambridge will help the East of England Ambulance Trust hit their target - but what about the other 25% of responses including Littleport?  The concern raised is whether Littleport is being left on a limb in order to hit the Government target in Cambridge.  Together with Cllr Fred Brown I am following this up, but to date there has been no clear answer despite our enquiries. 

This morning I have been told that a young football player from Littleport broke his leg in three places on Saturday in a match, but the paramedic car that arrived was not staffed by a fully trained paramedic.  As a result it took 1½ hours before he received any morphine to help with the pain.  So there still seems to be a lot of uncertainty and confusion about these changes.  The Ambulance Trust must explain why these changes are taking place and what impact they will have in East Cambridgeshire.

I will be in Littleport on Saturday morning with Debra and Louise to support their campaign and find out more about recent developments.  If you want to come and discuss the changes in paramedic cover please do pop along to see us on the High Street. 

Posted in Paramedics, Littleport | No Comments »

19/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

Something which I thought would be straightforward is providing anything but, given the capacity for bureaucracy to find reasons to be unhelpful to our local businesses. 

In previous blogs I have mentioned my desire to support businesses in Fenland and East Cambridgeshire by helping them to put up tourist signs.  Local attractions are often missed because those travelling through the area, and even sometimes people I chat to living locally, do not know what attractions are nearby.  One of our local businesses has been in touch to say they have been quoted £5,000 by the Highways Agency for one brown tourist sign.  Why should it cost so much?  Even more bizarre is that even if they pay this sum they cannot have a sign at the moment as new applicants are not allowed to apply for a sign in their first year of business.  Surely the first year is a critical time when the business needs to raise its profile and attract new customers? 

Another business in Fenland has just been told they do not have enough visitors to justify a sign.  Yet one of the reasons for wanting a sign is to get more visitors - without the sign this rule becomes an even higher hurdle.  Rural businesses often do not get as many visitors as attractions in cities - using the same visitor numbers test fails to take this into account.  Add to this the complexity of a host of different signage policies which results from us being on the border of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, and Lincolnshire, as well as near to Peterborough with its unitary status, and businesses face even more obstacles.  A Fenland business might be in Cambridgeshire but want to put the road sign 300 yards down the road which is over the border in Norfolk.

Thankfully Fenland DC is keen to see a solution and is working with me on this.  Is it not bizarre though that during a recession when we need as many jobs locally as possible, our local businesses cannot put up tourist signs?  Why should they have to waste so much time on these inflexible rules when they are paying tax to keep these bodies going, and have plenty of challenges running and growing their business?  We need to listen and respond to our businesses more, and I hope I can help them achieve what should be a simple request.  At the moment, it feels like I have delivered little progress for them on this.

Posted in Fenland District Council, Road & Rail | No Comments »

11/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

News today that the Prime Minister has issued an apology to Alan Turing, the brilliant mathematician and code breaker, for his treatment after the Second World War.  Yet if Gordon Brown really does care, why has he ignored the 21,920 signatories to the Number 10 petition less than six months ago for extra funding to preserve parts of the historic Bletchley Park?  The wooden hut where Alan Turing and others cracked the German enigma code and developed the modern computer is failing to bits.  Can you imagine the United States letting such a historic landmark in their country be treated like this?

The news on the car radio was brought to life for me as I am up in the Scottish Highlands and visited the Culloden battlefield this morning.  It made for an interesting contrast.  There is a superb new Visitor Centre at Culloden, and it is well worth a visit if you are in the area.  One negative however is that a road has been built through part of the battlefield which means the full scale of the battlefield is lost.  No doubt at the time it was seen as not being worth the money to preserve the full scope of the battlefield - in fact for many years there was nothing even to mark the spot of the fallen in battle before the local landowner acted.  Yet is this not what we are doing with Bletchley Park - preserving some bits of a heritage site but letting other bits decay and be lost to future generations?

I am sure Gordon Brown’s apology is heartfelt.  The treatment of Alan Turing was terrible and his early death tragic.  Yet without cash to preserve Bletchley Park, the apology risks being a gimmick which is more to appeal to voters than recognise Alan Turing.  A better tribute would be to act to preserve where he worked, so that future school children can visit the simple wooden hut and appreciate first hand the brilliance that helped saved thousands of lives and shorten the Second World War.  It might even encourage some to become future scientists - it is not as if our country does not need to develop more.  Surely that would be a more fitting tribute to Alan Turing than a soundbite.

Posted in History, Labour Failure | No Comments »

01/09/2009 by Steve Barclay.

Visit an elderly relative who has just gone into residential care.  He is paying £540 a week for his single room with space for his thin bed, one armchair, a sink in the corner and not much else.  Along the corridor are identical rooms where other residents pay nothing.  His mistake is to have lived within his means and saved over the years.  He is now paying over £2,000 a month from his life savings whilst those who spent their money and did not save get the same care and facilities for free. How can this be fair?

At his first Labour Conference as Prime Minister in 1997 Tony Blair promised to act.  In 1999 they appointed a Royal Commission.  Dither and delay then continued with a Green Paper, followed by a public consultation. After 13 years in power the Government is no further forward. Yet this issue is not going to go away.  Forecasters say that in the next two decades a quarter of the UK population will be over 65, with those over 85 expected to double.  There is no painless solution but the next Government will need to act.  As with the news today that electricity blackouts are forecast in a Government report within the next 8 years, it is clear the current Government will not take the tough decisions on key long term issues.

Those saving who are some years away from residential care also risk losing out unfairly from the current Government’s approach.  Labour is borrowing £500 million a day (in 1997 we borrowed all year what this Government is borrowing every 2 days) and paying for it by printing money.  Working out when to stop printing money will not be straight forward.  The Government’s biggest concern will no doubt be deflation - if the debt is big now then deflation would make it worse.  Yet this makes it more likely that money will be printed for too long, igniting inflation.  Inflation might help reduce the Governnment’s, companies and individual debt, but for pensioners living on their savings it will be devastating.  We should not underestimate how painful inflation can be and the hardship it causes.  Nor once started is it painless or popular to cure - it was inflation that drove the last Conservative Government to join the ERM.

So should children save?  After all, today is the day the first generation of children receive the Government’s top up to their Child Trust Funds (£500 to children if neither parent works and both claim benefit, but £250 to children where both parents work).  Estimates say that the Child Trust Funds for some children will be worth £10K when they are 18 years old.  These same children will have to pay back all this money plus interest in the form of higher tax (the money they receive today is borrowed from the next generation which is them) and those who go to university are receiving money to pay for future tuition fees i.e. what used to be free. Both schemes provide jobs for administators to deal with the paperwork, also paid for with money borrowed from the same children’s future tax bills. 

The consequences of the massive expansion of means testing under Gordon Brown as Chancellor and now Prime Minister is that more people will look to spend rather than save. It is no different to what their Government has done in not putting money aside in the boom years. And to think Gordon Brown used to talk about prudence.  A priority for the next Government must be to try to re-build a culture of saving, but it will not be easy.  The message risks being wiped out by the bills being run up today.

Posted in Labour Failure, Age Concern | No Comments »