Category Archives: Caroline Page

Caroline Page, National policy

Carers should have rights every day of the year!

Leave a comment

Caroline PageToday, 29th November is officially Carers Rights Day – the day when the UK  celebrates family carers and tells  them what they are worth.

” I am offended by the whole concept.  Carers Rights Day seems to be a day when well-paid professionals and media pundits gather together to pat each other on the backs and declare they care.  The brutal truth is that they don’t.  Society doesn’t. Successive governments don’t.   And when I once asked Unison strikers why they were not striking for family carers they memorably replied “Because you don’t work!” ,” says Woodbridge Councillor, Caroline Page

“Carers wouldn’t need a Carers Rights Day if the state had ever given Family Carers any meaningful rights.  And the right to be accepted as a worker rather than patronised as a rather dim and unworldly saint  comes top of the list,” Cllr Page –  a longterm family carer – maintains.

“If carers were seen as the workers they are, the real cost of that care: the working hours, the loss of careers, the impact of poverty and poor health, the absence of employment-related pensions – all these might be factored into the support offered to them. As it is, people suggest they may like a session of aromatherapy!

“The welfare state has traditionally relied  on the love carers feel for those they care for to save the state the real cost of that care. Yet carers suffer from blighted careers, poverty, poor health (fulltime carers are twice as likely to be in bad health than their peers) and can look forward to little more than an impoverished old age.  Thousands of people like myself have worked unsupported 168 hour weeks for years. It is perfectly possible we might just get worn out!”, says Caroline Page.   “This is not only sad and wrong, it is also very expensive.  How much does it cost to replace 24/7 specialised, knowledgeable care? Five years ago the cost of home care was estimated as between £18 and £27 per hour depending on whether it was daytime, evening or weekend. Goodness knows what it is in 2013.

“Every day should be Carers Rights Day – and everyone should recognise and remember they are a single step away from being either a carer or someone who needs  care.”

Caroline Page is calling on the government to look at and act on her wish-list :

  1. Carers Allowance should be viewed as a wage rather than a benefit, awarded to all full-time carers . Currently family carers can claim £59 odd a week -if they don’t earn more than £100:  meaning carers are expected to live and further their careers on £8368  a year. If, of course you earn a little more than £100 a week, you get no carers allowance at all. Yet the constraints on your lifestyle of fulltime caring are very equivalent to those of disability.
  2. The state must further relax rules on ‘other employment’ to allow carers the ‘luxury’ of being able to work, and have some non-caring life outside their responsibilities.
  3. The state should pay into the equivalent of an occupational pension for carers to accurately reflect (ok at minimum wage) the real hours spent caring. This could be established by reference to the cared for’s DLA returns and would give carers the prospect of a securer old age with recognition of what can be decades of real – if unpaid work.
  4. When a family carer is bereaved they are simultaneously made redundant. The state should set up robust and appropriate  training to provide  carers for genuine, satisfying jobs when their caring roles (often sadly) end. This isn’t a luxury – it is a reward for all the unpaid work they have done without prospect of career advancement. 

Caroline Page

Caroline Page, Dave Wood, National policy

A14 – why should years of underinvestment take an unjust toll?

1 Comment

Dave WoodSuffolk Lib Dems are deeply critical of  proposals to toll the A14. “We are saying  to government “You have got this wrong! Listen to us and to what the people of Suffolk are saying and revisit your decision to toll the A 14.”  And the majority of Suffolk organisations,  both private and Local Authority-led, are with us, ”  Leader David Wood told October’s full council meeting last Thursday.

The Lib Dems amended the  Conservative motion (to persuade the government to reconsider the need for tolling on this much-needed infrastructure project) by adding in reference to Suffolk’s  pressing need for investment in sustainable transport from  Felixstowe to Cambridge and beyond.

” The A14  is an esssential conduit between East Anglia and the heart of England –  and yet for years there has been underinvestment by various governments in major infrastructure projects in East Anglia. Imposing a toll on the new road would be a further tax on Suffolk,” said Cllr Wood. “We have the largest port in the country, major industry that is expanding, a growing tourist economy  – the two AONB’s alone are worth £300m annually-  and yet we are being told that  if you want this highway  (its not even a motorway) you must pay for it!!  We wouldn’t mind so much if this were government policy across the country, but it isn’t. Of all the current  planned road-building schemes, only the A14  is planned to generate income, ”

“We recognise that Suffolk must be at the table when this subject is being discussed  if we are going to put the point across successfully. This is why we were unable to support a Labour motion to withdraw the £1m funding SCC’s putting towards this major project. A million pounds is a huge amount of money but Suffolk County Council  must be at the forefront of every discussion – putting the case for the people and industry of Suffolk to have its say and obtain a fair deal.

Investment in major infrastructure projects for East Anglia are long overdue which is why we are insisting  that rail links between Felixstowe to Cambridge and beyond  must also be looked at. Suffolk is an important player in the UK’s recovery and deserves investment without taxation,” said Cllr Wood.

Lib Dem spokesperson for Transport , Caroline Page, who seconded the amendment, adds ” years of underinvestment in Suffolk railways has left us with rail services from Ipswich to Cambridge and Peterborough which fall well short of what is required for effective day-to-day operation. In its current state the rail system is unable to provide a viable  alternative to a tolled A14.  This makes any decision to toll doubly unfair, because there isn’t the capacity for a reliable public transport alternative. ”

 

Caroline Page, Inga Lockington, Penny Otton, Questions to Council

What your LibDem Councillors are asking SCC, 24 October 2013

Leave a comment

BannerAt today’s Full council meeting, your LibDem councillors are asking the SCC administration the following questions. We will post the answers and any supplementary questions and answers arising from them

From Cllr Penny Otton to Cllr Lisa Chambers

16,000 pupils in England are severely bullied and cannot face going to school.  What alternative provision does Suffolk have for these children other than pupil referral units.

From Cllr Inga Lockington to Cllr Mark Bee

Is there anything in in any Customer First Contract between SCC and CSD to stop staff talking to a customer face to face.

From Cllr Caroline Page to Cllr Alan Murray

Following Friday’s permanent closure of the Sexual Health clinic at Ipswich hospital, I am reassured that Public Health is working hard to ensure some services will continue be available in Ipswich while a future location is created. Can you please tell me what  facilities for immediate STI diagnosis (eg microscopy), for immediate on-site free dispensing of drugs (as opposed to by prescription collected from a pharmacist) and for co-ordination of contact tracing  Public Health is ensuring are put in place in the immediate aftermath of closure?

Caroline Page

Greater Anglia to remove cycles from trains?

Leave a comment

4SuffolkSUnriseWhile Suffolk’s public health team are encouraging people get out of their cars an onto bicycles, Suffolk train operator Greater Anglia has produced a draft cycle strategy  stating pretty unequivocally that their future intention is that they will no longer carry cycles on the trains.

The company says it is  intending to work towards “ a ‘corridor approach’ where a specific problem exists with cycles on trains, and to provide secure cycle parking and hire at both ends of the train journey so that customers are encouraged to either have a cycle at both stations, or to take advantage of cycle hire or possibly another sustainable mode of transport from their destination”. You can read the full  piece below.

“Whilst bike and go is a suitable model for some cyclists – principally those with simple journeys, who are affluent enough to afford two bicycles or the £3.50 a day to hire one – this plan will  further disadvantage those passengers who are poor, with few travel options, and/or need to take a train to and from a rural destination. The Wickham Market station at Campsea Ash is a prime example – here there IS no sustainable transport,  no likelihood of cycle hire, no secure parking, and the town is some miles of unpavemented, unoccupied rural road from the station,” says Lib Dem Spokesperson for Transport, Caroline Page.

“I am further concerned about  other wording elsewhere which suggests that folding bicycles may not in the future be considered as luggage, although they may well be smaller than other pieces of luggage. This is a worrying development.

As another part of this consultation, Greater Anglia are planning on setting up a Cycle Forum to assist them in decisionmaking. I have already written to ask that I be included in this, and am awaiting their response.”

The consultation relies on one to download a pdf  hidden on a page in Greater Anglia’s website and then make a  response in writing, or by email. 

Cycle Strategy Responses
Greater Anglia
11th floor
One Stratford Place
LONDON E20 1EJ
cyclestrategy@greateranglia.co.uk

Please clearly mark your response ‘Draft Cycle Strategy

 The  draft cycle strategy as relating to Cycles on trains:

“Our policy in the short term continues to be that we will try to accommodate the carriage of cycles on trains free of charge wherever we possibly can. However, we have to balance this demand with the views of our customers as a whole, some of whom are beginning to voice understandable concerns about the safety of carrying large numbers of cycles at peak times. Our objective for the medium to long term is therefore to reduce the carriage of cycles on trains by stimulating behavioural change.

Many of our trains carrying commuters into London and regional centres such as Cambridge are becoming increasingly crowded, and it has already become necessary to impose restrictions on the carriage of non-folding cycles at these times. We will keep these restrictions under review, but as the use of our services continues to grow, we believe that we and future franchisees will have to consider a widening of the restrictions to cover other routes and services. Unfortunately, it is not a simple matter to provide additional carriages, and the priority will always be to provide seated or standing accommodation for passengers.

We are therefore conscious that we need to work with stakeholders to find alternative solutions to this problem. These need to be viable alternatives, rather than just more punitive restrictions.

We believe the options are to take a ‘corridor approach’ where a specific problem exists with cycles on trains, and to provide secure cycle parking and hire at both ends of the train journey so that customers are encouraged to either have a cycle at both stations, or to take advantage of cycle hire or possibly another sustainable mode of transport from their destination. This reflects the culture in force in many parts of Europe and will require considerable resolve on the part of our company and all of our stakeholders if it is to become the norm in this country.

There may also be options around wider use of folding cycles, provided that these are used with sensitivity for the needs of other customers. We appreciate that there needs to be a considerable amount of partnership working and goodwill from all parties to manage this difficult situation. We undertake to work with other train operators on shared sections of route to manage the problem consistently and as sympathetically as possible. We will also engage with local authorities and cycling groups to implement the ‘corridor’ approach where it is practical to do so”

Caroline Page, Inga Lockington, Penny Otton, Questions to Council, Uncategorized

Answers to LibDem questions: Full Council, 19 September

Leave a comment

Questions we asked this month concerned Homecare packages, closure of Lowestoft’s  EAOTAs centre and the  disparity between amount of expenses Suffolk county councillors can claim for different forms of transport.

Below in full are the questions as tabled by your Suffolk Lib Dem Councillors at September’s Full Council on the 19th, together with a summary of  the appropriate  Cabinet member’s reply (plus supplementary question and response where appropriate).

Inga Lockington  to Cabinet member for Adult Care & Health  Allan Murray

Question: How many residents assessed as needing care support and living alone in Suffolk receive Homecare visits of no longer than 15min within their care package?

Answer:  We only commission packages that meet the needs of the patients and the basic package is for never less than 30 minutes.  However an extra package may be added in certain circumstances. This may be a 15 minute package

Penny Otton to Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and Young People Lisa Chambers

Question: Following the interview I did with Sally Chidzoy on BBC LOOK EAST in July I am pleased  to discover that the EAOTAS centre in Lowestoft has NOW closed . Why did this take so long??

Answer; EOTAS is run by external contractors – despite SCC working closely with the last company we were unable to come to an agreement, so they were given notice.  The scheduled closure is Oct 25th.

Supplementary question: How are you supporting the children?

Answer: We are working closely with the parents to ensure a smooth transition.

Caroline Page to Mark Bee, Leader of the Council

Question: Cllr Bee, as you have made it a council commitment that Suffolk should be ” the greenest county” and that we should  ”strive to improve the health, life chance and life expectancy of our residents”,  will you now commit to a reduction of the extremely generous mileage allowance Suffolk County councillors get if they use their own cars for transport on county council business – and instead to incentivise county councillors  to set a good example  to the residents of Suffolk by travelling by public transport or bicycle?

Answer:    Council are committed to encouraging healthier / cheaper forms of transport.  Allowances and expenses are being reviewed by the remuneration review panel. Cllr Bee  says he will put these concerns to the panel

(you can read Caroline Page’s blog about her question here)

Caroline Page, Dave Wood, Uncategorized

‘Active travel” needs SCC councillors’ active support!

Leave a comment
DSCF8699
Caroline Page and David Wood on the Suffolk Challenge Walk 2013 which followed 100km of AONB from Felixstowe to Lowestoft in May.

 

Suffolk’s  Annual Public Health report  2013  – Moving forward? concerns itself with travel and health and recommends a  move to ‘active travel’  – and a wholesale transfer of many journeys or parts of journeys to the bicycle or foot.

In supporting the report, Lib Dem leader   Cllr David Wood urged the administration to look again at its public transport policy. “We need to see  see buses in rural areas in the evening on Sundays and Public Holidays once more, enabling rural Suffolk to be open again for business and not totally reliant on the car,” he said.

He pointed out that vast areas of Suffolk’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty  prime land for cycling an wakling, cannot be accessed by any other means than car – a frankly ludicrous anomaly!

Lib Dem spokesman for Transport, Cllr Caroline Page, is a committed cyclist, pedestrian and bus user. She was also enthusiastic about this report,  but has reservations about its chance of implementation.

“Sadly there seem to be many councillors who are converted to active travel  in theory but not at all in practice.  At the full council debate on the subject last Thursday, I heard a stream of excuses, exculpations and explanations from  individuals who are compensated by the Council Tax payer at 44p per mile to remain in their cars at no cost to themselves –  and so don’t have to make the same choices as others they represent.

While there remains such a clear gap between what  councillors think is a good idea for others and what they are prepared to do themselves, we  are not going to progress as far or fast as we would like,” she says.

On a happier note, it looks as if the Suffolk train services are becoming more proactive on the subject of cycles.  After introducing many more cycle parking spaces and introducing ‘Boris bikes’ on its routes,  Greater Anglia  has now formally launched its new cycle strategy with a consultation. You can find further details and a link on Caroline Page’s blog

 

Caroline Page, Inga Lockington, Penny Otton, Questions to Council

Lib Dem Questions for Suffolk County Council: 19 Sept 2013

Leave a comment

BannerEvery Full Council, elected members have the opportunity to put questions to the Cabinet members at Suffolk County Council.

These are the questions Lib Dem county councillors are asking this September. I will post the replies after the meeting

Inga Lockington  to Cabinet member for Adult Care & Health  Allan Murray

How many residents assessed as needing care support and living alone in Suffolk receive Homecare visits of no longer than 15min within their care package?

Penny Otton to Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and Young People Lisa Chambers

Following the interview I did with Sally Chidzoy on BBC LOOK EAST in July I am pleased  to discover that the EAOTAS centre in Lowestoft has NOW closed . Why did this take so long??

Caroline Page to Mark Bee, Leader of the Council

Cllr Bee, as you have made it a council commitment that Suffolk should be ” the greenest county” and that we should  “strive to improve the health, life chance and life expectancy of our residents”,  will you now commit to a reduction of the extremely generous mileage allowance Suffolk County councillors get if they use their own cars for transport on county council business – and instead to incentivise county councillors  to set a good example  to the residents of Suffolk by travelling by public transport or bicycle?

Caroline Page, National policy, Penny Otton, Uncategorized

Pupil Premium – a fairer society in Suffolk?

1 Comment

Suffolk schools pupil premiumA fascinating new interactive map will show you exactly how much extra funding  your local school has been able to claim via Pupil Premium

An extra £25,000? £75,000? £242,000?

Woodbridge county councillor Caroline Page is delighted to point out that ” this school year, Woodbridge’s excellent and inclusive  Farlingaye High School has been able to claim nearly a quarter of a million pounds to provide additional  support to pupils from hard-pressed homes. This is thanks to the  Liberal Democrats  in the Coalition government.”

The Pupil Premium – which is additional to main school funding – is an initiative introduced by the Liberal Democrats in government which intends to address the current underlying inequalities between children eligible for free school meals and their peer. It is doing this very practically by ensuring that funding to tackle disadvantage reaches the pupils who need it most.

You can click here to seach the map for yourself and find out for yourself what your  school has been able to claim.

However, getting the funding is only the start. “Its quite a revelation to see how much money is going into Suffolk schools. We now have to see what they are doing with it, ” points out Suffolk Lib Dem schools spokesperson, Penny Otton

Caroline Page

Re-regulate Suffolk buses to save services, says Councillor

Leave a comment

Caroline PageFaced with the major collapse of  rural bus ‘services’ in Suffolk, Woodbridge Councillor and Lib Dem Spokesman for Transport Caroline Page, has long been calling  on both Suffolk County Council and the government to look at re-regulation of rural bus services.

“The response of both  institutions has been largely negative,” she says “despite clear evidence that ‘competition’ and ‘market forces’ have done absolutely nothing to benefit rural users over the last decades .”

Yet re-regulation  is not impossible.

Last Friday the five Tyne and Wear councils voted to start the consultation necessary to re-regulate their buses . It will be the first region to take the plunge since  deregulation  of bus non-London services in the 1980s. Re-regulation  will allow the region to aim once again for the efficiency, coverage and price which is standard for bus services  in regulated London by giving bus companies franchises to run all local services, instead of letting them cherry-pick the ones on which they can make the most money. This is why there are ‘bus wars’ on popular routes in towns  and no service at all in many rural areas.

Tyne and Wear was warned that without change, all local school buses would go; a further 200 bus routes would likely disappear, and concessionary child fares would vanish. However, if the councils take over the bus routes, they could use the current subsidy and profits to grow the service to make it meet the needs of all residents.

“Tyne and Wear’s problems are not dissimilar to those we are facing in Suffolk,” says Caroline.

Buses are Britain’s main form of public transport, and in the old days the concept of bus ‘services’ meant service: popular routes would fund socially necessary but less income-generating services elsewhere. De-regulation was heralded by the Thatcher administration as providing competition, but in fact since the 80s some big bus companies have clearly used their size to see off other competitors   creating  local monopolies  which do not benefit passengers at all .   According to the FT “Bus companies earn higher margins outside London.. Stagecoach makes an average of 17 per cent outside London, while the figure for Go-Ahead is 10 per cent.”  The FT says  that average London operators make between 4 and 5 %.

“Bus companies should be forced to compete with each other to  provide proper services rather than to maximise profits. I once again call upon Suffolk County Council  to do everything they can to make this possible,” says Caroline.

Be Sociable, Share!
Caroline Page, Inga Lockington, John Field, Penny Otton, Uncategorized

Replies to Lib Dem Councillors’ questions, July 2013

2 Comments

Below are the questions your Lib Dem Councillors tabled at July’s Full Council together with the appropriate  Cabinet member’s reply (plus supplementary question and response where appropriate). They have been transcribed from the official audio recording. 

Most unfortunately, John Field’s question, in relation to the Great Blakenham incinerator – although submitted correctly, and acknowledged as such by the Suffolk County Council Monitoring Officer – disappeared from the Full Council agenda and therefore was neither asked nor answered.

To remind you, it was:

1.  John Field to Cabinet Member for Environment, Waste and Economic Development  (Richard Smith)

The “Escape” study published in the Lancet Oncology journal indicated substantial increases in Lung Cancer at levels of PM2.5 and PM10 pollution significantly below the EEC recommended limits.  A second study from Nicholas Mills also in the Lancet  linked heart failure rates to PM2.5 and PM10 pollution.  These studies raise concern in the population local to the incinerator under construction in Gt Blakenham whose emissions are designed to meet European standards.  While I don’t wish to be alarmist these new studies warrant attention.

Will the Cabinet member ensure that the implications of these reports for my division and the wider area are studied thoroughly and reported to councillors and local people?

An answer to this question would be welcomed.

The other questions were:

2. Penny Otton  to Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and Young People (Lisa Chambers )  “It has been reported that many primary schools have overcrowded classrooms, i.e; there are more than 30 pupils in a class. In which schools in Suffolk does this occur?”

Cllr Chambers’ response :  “There is legislation on the size of infant classes: In infant classes there should be no more than 30 children to a single teacher. There are however permitted exceptions for example; to allow twins to be in the same class, or when a pier panel puts children in a school above the planned intake, or when the child receives a statement of special educational need which names the school. The number of infant classes where there has been more than 30 pupils is reported to the department of education by schools every January. This year there were 15 schools in Suffolk where an infant class exceeded 30. In all but one of these cases, additional pupils fell into one of the permissible categories. After changes at one school, none of its infant classes are now above 30.”

Penny Otten – Supplementary Question: “Following on from this, it seems like the Minister Michael Gove has now scrapped the automatic right for 4 year olds to be given a full-time space in school. If this happens in Suffolk, how will you react to that drastic change in school policy?”

Cllr Chambers – Supplementary Response: “This is something I will look into and will take up with the admissions team over the next few weeks. I am happy to respond to you in writing once I have established the full facts.”

Cllr Chambers’ written answer supplied as follows:  The Local Authority has had notification from the Secretary of State, of a change made or an intention to make a change to remove the entitlement to a ‘full time’ school place for  every 4 year old child.   Therefore we are continuing to work on the basis that a full time place is the entitlement.

If the Secretary of State was to remove this requirement then it could have the effect of increasing capacity in primary school places.

In Suffolk the current primary place strategy does and will continue to provide adequate places in primary schools for Suffolk children.  Cabinet has approved a number of capital projects to expand primary schools over proceeding years. The most recent being the Ipswich expansion at the last Cabinet.  Suffolk is not in the same position as some other parts of the country, particularly areas in London, where there is very considerable pressure on primary places.

The Annual School Organisation Plan which sets out how we are planning for places and the projections we use will be presented to scrutiny over the coming months when it is finalised and this will provide a further opportunity for debate.

I assume that your questions at council was generated by the press coverage that morning relating to the Bournemouth case, which has raised questions about the clarity of 2012 admissions code guidance for Local Authorities in respect of the entitlement of a full time place for every 4 year old.  This doesn’t appear at this stage, however, to be a changing government policy and the DfE are remaining quiet at the moment.

3. Inga Lockington to Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Care  (Alan Murray) : “Within the Council’s policy of maintaining dependent people in the Community, could the Portfolio Holder let us know how many assessed Suffolk residents are in receipt of high dependency care packages at home ie. at least two carer visits 4 times a day (or the equivalent Budget) and how does this compare with the same time in 2012 & 2011.”

Cllr Murray Response: “The comparative figures for June are 688, 617, and 598”

Inga Lockington Supplementary Question: “Has there been any change to the assessment criteria over these last few years?

Cllr Murray Supplementary Response: “The answer to that is quite complex, and the assessment criteria are constantly under review, and I would have to (as I am a relatively new boy here) ask for a full response from my officers, but in the complex situation we are, with new CCG’s, hospitals in crisis, ambulances in crisis, it is something we keep under a very accurate review”

Cllr Murray’s further written response  “I can confirm in writing that the assessment criteria for social care support in Suffolk have not changed over the past three years – they remain substantial and critical.”

Best regards,

Alan

4.  Caroline Page to Cabinet Member for Roads and Transport (Graham Newman): “Public transport is an essential part of supporting the welfare of the county, particularly in rural areas. It is coming under increasing pressure and is failing to meet the needs at the time when Suffolk needs it most. When is Cllr Newman going to pressure national government to alter the ridiculous ethos of so-called ‘competition’ which has caused deregulated buses to provide such a terrible service to the people of the Suffolk countryside, over the past decades?”

Cllr Newman Response: “I’m a strong supporter of public transport services in Suffolk. I wish to see more effective coordination of services. The government clearly set out its position in March 2012, in its full response to the competition commission report; ‘Local Bus Service Market Investigation’.
I believe the focus of our efforts should now be on working with the commercial sector to improve the availability and the affordability of transport, particularly to support young people to continue to learn and take their first steps into employment. I therefore welcome the cooperation of the commercial sector in developing our new ‘Endeavour Card’ for young people, and hope that we can build on this relationship to further improve services without unaffordable financial support, in this county council. As Cllr Page will know*, we are meeting with Therese Coffey MP, to discuss these very issues, and indeed I have previously discussed them informally with Dr. Coffey.”

* Caroline Page:  This was actually news to me  – though very welcome news, particularly as Dr Coffey has not so far answered the specific points I raised with her in June concerning this subject, although she has replied to my letter.