Agenda and minutes

The Mayor advised the meeting that the first item on the agenda in Open Council was Public Question Time.  The questions had been received from members of the public and would be taken in the order in which they had been received.  Council was advised that if the questioner was not present, then the question would appear on the screen in the Council Chamber.

The following public questions had been submitted: (20 mins)

1.         Question from Peter Davis via email:

“When UKIP Councillor Warren Bates was elected last May in Failsworth West, he said he was going to put Failsworth back on the map. So when I looked at his Annual Report of Activities, I was shocked to see what he had reported, you could have fitted his achievements on a postage stamp.

I asked a question at the last Full Council Meeting, when Cllr Bates had made pledges at previous election campaigns to donate half his allowance to charity, Council confirmed Cllr Bates had claimed his full entitlement to allowances and gave him the opportunity to respond, which he refused to do despite the Mayor giving him opportunity several times, he responded by saying no comment.

Since then I have learnt that Councillor Bates has been in front of the Standard's Committee after a number of complaints that he has been found to have disrespected an 84 year old former soldier and received a three month ban from Failsworth Town Hall when The Failsworth Historical Society holds it meetings.

Would Council agree that his actions have brought the role of Councillor into disrepute?”

Mr. Davis asked his question.

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and City Region responded thanks for his question.  He expressed his disappointment with recent events.  He explained the annual report provides information as to what councillors were doing in carrying out their duties and responsibilities.  Elected Members were offered support and training to help complete the form.  The way the report had been completed appeared disrespectful of the process. The Standards complaint would be discussed later on the agenda.  The public have a right to be treated with respect and on this occasion the Councillor fell short of expectations.  A lot of time had been taken in dealing with complaint and counter complaints which was not a good use of officer and member time.

2.         Question from Maria Dawn Ellis via email:

“I am Maria Ellis, chairperson of Peace Talks Oldham - We support the message of Mr Prem Rawat, given the title "The Ambassador of Peace" by the European Parliament. He has traveled worldwide for almost 50 years, with the message that "Peace is Possible".

Firstly I would like to thank Oldham Council & the Mayor for their support for the Peace Day event at Gallery Oldham on Saturday 20th September. Simon Shuttleworth and the District Partnership were very helpful & we are proud to report that 236 people attended the 4 hour event. WE were told that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Blyth and Ur-Rehman.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Council Meetings held on 4^th February 2015 and 25^th February 2015 be AGREED as a correct record.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct, Councillors Judge, Shuttleworth and Heffernan declared a personal prejudicial interest in Item 11, Cabinet Minutes, 23 February 2015 by virtue of being a Board Member of the Oldham Coliseum; Councillors Brownridge and Stretton declared a personal interest in Item 11, Cabinet Minutes, 23 February 2015 by virtue of being a member of the Shadow Board of Oldham Coliseum;

Councillors Brownridge, Chauhan, Harrison and McCann declared a personal interest in Item 14b – Minutes of the Oldham Care and Support and Oldham Care and Support At Home Company by virtue of their appointment to the Board. Councillor Akhtar declared a personal interest in Item 11, Cabinet Minutes 23 February 2015, items 15 and 25.  Councillor Ahmad declared a personal interest in Item 15, by virtue of his appointment as a Non-Executive Director at the Pennine Acute Hospital Trust.  Councillor McMahon declared a personal interest in Item 14a and 15 by virtue of his appointment to GMCA / AGMA Executive.  Councillor Sheldon declared a pecuniary interest in 3 by virtue of his business in the Saddleworth area.

The Mayor informed the meeting that no items of urgent business had been received.

The Mayor advised the meeting that no items had been received related to the business of the Council.

The Mayor advised that two petitions had been received for noting by Council:

Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives

Save Our Youth Services (e-petitions started 6^th October 2014 and closed 27^th February 2015) (773 signatures) (Ref 2014-20)

Request for Road Humps, Waverley Street, Derker, Oldham (received 5^th February 2015) (51 signatures) (Ref 2015-05)

RESOLVED that the petitions received since the last meeting of the Council be noted.

(time limit 15 minutes).

Motion 1

Councillor Akhtar to MOVE and Councillor Ball to SECOND:

The New Economy recently published a report which reviewed the impact of benefit sanctions. This has been reviewed by the Oldham Poverty Action Group and local data collected through a workshop.  The Group has stated that:

·         The sanctions system itself is complex and the wording in official letters is difficult to understand. Local residents do not know they can access hardship payments from the DWP and are not clear about Local Welfare Provision.

·         Many organisations that work to support claimants believe that sanctions are applied when they shouldn’t be.  For example when there are exceptional circumstances that have led to the claimants actions   e.g. when a person is sanctioned for not attending an interview when the letter inviting them arrived after the date of the meeting.

·         People who are already vulnerable are often more likely to incur sanctions e.g. concerns were expressed about people with mental ill health and with poor literacy/numeracy skills.

·         Overall there seems to be less support services available to help people facing multiple disadvantages who are affected by sanctions which means people are left isolated and need to turn to charitable help.

According to the Children in Poverty Action Group only about one third of sanctioned claimants appeal and yet 56% are successful at getting the sanction overturned which implies that confidence and understanding about the appeal process is likely to be poorly understood and that too many sanctions probably shouldn’t have been applied. A number of work clubs in Oldham are now trying to support claimants with the appeal process and it is appears that where claimants have skills issues (e.g. literacy issues) that they will not engage in submitting appeals.

I thereby call on the Chief Executive to write to the Government asking it to urgently review its approach to sanctioning. It is accepted that sometimes sanctions are required but there should be a fairness test and clear support pathways for those sanctioned.

Motion 2

Councillor Briggs to MOVE and Councillor Williams to SECOND:

This Council recognises the hazards caused by Sky Lanterns (also known as Chinese Lanterns).

Sky Lanterns have given rise to a number of serious safety concerns including:

·         The risk to human life, especially to those who are members of the emergency services

·         Risks to Pets, livestock, birds, wildlife and marine life.

·         Fires and damage to property and vehicles.

·         The impact on the environment, including littering.

Sky Lanterns were responsible for the fire at the Smethwick Recycling Plant in June 2013, which resulted in damage totalling around £6m. They have also been responsible for 62 fires within Greater Manchester.

Death and injury has been inflicted on Pets, livestock, birds, wildlife and marine life mainly through ingestion and entrapment caused by the lanterns wire frames.

The RSPCA, Fire and Rescue Authorities, farmers and vets have all warned of the dangers of Sky Lanterns. They have also been banned in several other countries including Australia, Spain and  ...  view the full agenda text for item 8.

The Mayor informed the meeting that there were two items of outstanding business from the previous meeting.

“Motion 1

Councillor Akhtar MOVED and Councillor Ball SECONDED the following Motion:

The New Economy recently published a report which reviewed the impact of benefit sanctions. This has been reviewed by the Oldham Poverty Action Group and local data collected through a workshop. The Group has stated that:

• The sanctions system itself is complex and the wording in official letters is difficult to understand. Local residents do not know they can access hardship payments from the DWP and are not clear about Local Welfare Provision.
• Many organisations that work to support claimants believe that sanctions are applied when they shouldn’t be. For example when there are exceptional circumstances that have led to the claimants actions e.g. when a person is sanctioned for not attending an interview when the letter inviting them arrived after the date of the meeting.
• People who are already vulnerable are often more likely to incur sanctions e.g. concerns were expressed about people with mental ill health and with poor literacy/numeracy skills.
• Overall there seems to be less support services available to help people facing multiple disadvantages who are affected by sanctions which means people are left isolated and need to turn to charitable help.

According to the Children in Poverty Action Group only about one third of sanctioned claimants appeal and yet 56% are successful at getting the sanction overturned which implies that confidence and understanding about the appeal process is likely to be poorly understood and that too many sanctions probably shouldn’t have been applied. A number of work clubs in Oldham are now trying to support claimants with the appeal process and it is appears that where claimants have skills issues (e.g. literacy issues) that they will not engage in submitting appeals.

I thereby call on the Chief Executive to write to the Government asking it to urgently review its approach to sanctioning. It is accepted that sometimes sanctions are required but there should be a fairness test and clear support pathways for those sanctioned.

AMENDMENT

Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor McCann SECONDEDthe following amendment:

“Insert before the start of the motion:

‘This Council notes that:

-       Benefit claimants enter into a Claimant Commitment in which they agree to meet certain conditions in return for benefit payments, referred to as “conditionality”.

-       Sanctions are imposed when a claimant fails to satisfy “conditionality” without “good reason”.

This Council wishes to ensure that local benefit claimants are made aware of:

-       The advice and support available from Job Centre Plus, Get Oldham Working and the Oldham Work Club Network.

-       The importance of meeting “conditionality” and of furnishing “good reason” as soon as possible where they cannot do so.

-       Their right to appeal against sanctions, and the support that is available to them from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau and the Welfare Rights team.

-       Their right to apply for a Hardship Payment or for Local Welfare  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(time limit 20 minutes)

There is no Youth Council business to consider

The Mayor advised the meeting that there were no items of business received from the Youth Council.

The Leader of the Opposition raised the following three questions:

1.         Introduction of the National Living Wage

“In December 2013 the Liberal Democrat Group brought a motion to Council proposing that Oldham Council become a National Living Wage Employer by April 2014.

The Leader will doubtless recall that in response to the motion that he made a personal commitment to ensure that every employee of this authority would be paid at least the National Living Wage by April 2015.

During the last Council Budget Meeting the Leader rightly paid tribute to the hard work and commitment of our employees, but in becoming a National Living Wage employer, this authority will commit itself to rewarding them fairly for their efforts and we will also set an example for other progressive employers in this Borough to follow.

My first question to the Leader tonight is two-fold – can he confirm that his commitment to introduce the National Living Wage for all staff will be honoured from today?

And can he also confirm whether home care workers and staff employed by contractors engaged by this Council will also receive the National Living Wage?”

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council responded that from today Council staff were in receipt of the National Living Wage and tied into the Fair Employment Charter.  This gave the Council the credibility of getting its own house in order and extended to contractors as well as Oldham Care and Support.  More businesses would be asked to share the effort to make Oldham a fair and decent town.

2.  Renovation of Union Street West Footbridge

“I am pleased to see that the much-hated Manchester Street footbridge is now finally demolished. 

The Leader will recall that I made reference to the need to demolish this footbridge in a question to Council last year, but in my question I also referred to the dilapidated state of Union Street West Bridge which links the town centre and the Sixth Form College to Coppice. 

The £900,000 bridge was opened in 2000, but it has always been plagued with broken glass panels, caused by the natural movement and flexing of the structure as pedestrians use it.  Because of this the bridge is ‘tinned up’. 

This causes two problems  the metal barriers obscure vision, which has led to instances of vandalism and out-of-sight attacks on passers-by. 

It also crosses one of the main arterial roads in Oldham – the Oldham Way – it is an eyesore to the many motorists that daily pass by it.  Not the sort of gate way feature any of us would want I am sure?

I am sure the Leader will agree that the risk to the safety of residents and the less than favourable impression of Oldham created by the current condition of footbridge are both reasons to find a solution as soon as possible.

I was pleased to hear that the Department of Transport has recently awarded Oldham Council £3.16m to upgrade parts of the A62 and the Oldham  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

(time limit 20 minutes):-

a) 26^th January 2015

b) 23^rd February 2015

The Cabinet Minutes for the meetings held on 26^th January 2015 and 23^rd February 2015 were submitted.  The Mayor reminded the meeting that, as previously agreed by Council, the last eight minutes of this section would be reserved for observations on responses received and responses to observations.

Questions and observations were raised by the following Councillors on the Cabinet Minutes as detailed below:

Councillor McCann – Cabinet meeting - 23 February 2015, Item 7(d), page 58, Welfare Reform, where it was resolved that “maximising the use of Discretionary Housing Payment to ensure the full amount of government grant was allocated”.  Could the Cabinet Member confirm all funds allocated by the Government have now been disbursed and that no further administration costs over the £73,000 already spent have been incurred.  Should there be any money left, advise how much is left and confirm this will be spent?”

Councillor Jabbar advised that Discretionary Housing Payments were additional payments which could be made to recipients who did not receive full Housing Benefit and cannot afford to make up the shortfall in their rent.  In 2014/15 Oldham Council received funding from the DWP of £500,082 and keen to ensure that the full amount of the funding was spent to support residents in Oldham especially those affected by welfare form.  He announced that for the year 2014/15 £506,908.51 Discretionary Housing Payments had been allocated to residents of Oldham.  This was slightly above the amount awarded by the DWP with the additional amount being met by the Council.  There were concerns about the level of support that could be provided for 2015/2016 as the DWP had nationally reduced the amount of money available for Discretionary Housing Payments.  In Oldham funding had been reduced by 24.5% to £377,386.  In relation to the cost of the administration for Discretionary Housing Payments, it was confirmed that there were no additional costs paid as it as within the overall costs of running the Benefits Services.

Members made the following observations:

1.             Councillor Houle – Cabinet Meeting, 23^rd February 2015 – page 58, Item 7 – Impact of Welfare Reform and expressed concerns on the number of residents impacted by sanctions which were the highest in Greater Manchester, the number of people who visited foodbanks, proposed further cuts in welfare and the probability of increased number of sanctions.

2.    Councillor Harkness, Cabinet Meeting, 23^rd February 2015 – page 62 – Item 13 - Proposed Disposal of Land at Ward Lane Diggle, Oldham (Asset 987) – Councillors had met with residents and assets team, councillors had supported the scheme for land to be sold for housing but had wanted social housing, eco scheme and self-build scheme which would benefit first time buyers and expressed disappointment that the Cabinet had agreed more executive housing.

3.         Councillor Heffernan – Cabinet meeting – 23^rd February 2015, page 57 and 65, Agenda Items 6 and 21 – Oldham Coliseum Theatre and Heritage Centre – Project Implementation – expressing delight that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

(time limit 30 minutes)

Motion 1

Councillor Akhtar to MOVE and Councillor Chadderton to SECOND:

This Council notes with great concern the announcement made by this Liberal Democrat/Tory Government of a further 25% reduction in the budget for adult skills for 2015/16.

This adult budget is the money which funds adults returning to education who have not achieved through the school system.  It includes money which we use to fund 19 year olds who have not completed their Level 2 or Level 3 courses by the age of 18 (either because of their low attainment at 16, or other factors in their lives).

It also funds adults of any age coming back into education later in life, and it supports English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) which plays such an important role in community cohesion.

The serious negative impact of this cut on Oldham should not be underestimated.

Currently, 60% of Oldham resident adults hold qualifications no higher than Level 2. As high skilled jobs in the City Region demand a skill level of 4-6, and it is estimated that 50% of future jobs will require this level of skills.

Indeed, many of those 60% of adults, who did not achieve well at school, will simply be stuck in a low skilled, low paid trap -  the consequences of these cuts will greatly influence the future of our town.

The Council resolves:

·         To instruct to the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate government minister immediately after the General Election upon the forming of the next government, expressing the councils concern in regards to the future of adult skills funding.

·         To ask our three Members of Parliament after the General Election to lobby the appropriate Secretary of State in regards to adult skills and its future funding, emphasising the specific concerns raised in regards to Oldham.

Motion 2

Councillor Jabbar to MOVE and Councillor Wrigglesworth to SECOND:

This Council recognises the wholly unequal and unfair way in which this Liberal Democrat/Tory Government has directly cut its funding to local authorities and towns such as Oldham. While Oldham has lost £176 Million in government support since 2009 with another £30 Million more to hit next year (2016/17) other councils such as Tewkesbury and Surrey have seen over 3% increases this year in their spending power.

This Council notes with concern comments made by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee in regards to cuts to local authority funding, stating. “Councils with the greatest spending needs – the most deprived authorities – have been receiving the largest reductions. Further cuts could not just undermine the entire viability of most optional services, but might threaten some statutory services in these areas.”

This Council calls for a fairer local government settlement from central government and recognises a recent Sigoma ‘Protecting Vital Services’ Report in which abhorrently unfair local and regional inequalities are presented. Furthermore this report and this Council stress the need for government to take a fresh look at local  ...  view the full agenda text for item 12.

Motion 1

Councillor Akhtar MOVED and Councillor Chadderton SECONDED

“This Council notes with great concern the announcement made by this Liberal Democrat/Tory Government of a further 25% reduction in the budget for adult skills for 2015/16.

This adult budget is the money which funds adults returning to education who have not achieved through the school system. It includes money which we use to fund 19 year olds who have not completed their Level 2 or Level 3 courses by the age of 18 (either because of their low attainment at 16, or other factors in their lives).

It also funds adults of any age coming back into education later in life, and it supports English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) which plays such an important role in community cohesion.

The serious negative impact of this cut on Oldham should not be underestimated.

Currently, 60% of Oldham resident adults hold qualifications no higher than Level 2. As high skilled jobs in the City Region demand a skill level of 4-6, and it is estimated that 50% of future jobs will require this level of skills.

Indeed, many of those 60% of adults, who did not achieve well at school, will simply be stuck in a low skilled, low paid trap - the consequences of these cuts will greatly influence the future of our town.

The Council resolves:

·         To instruct to the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate government minister immediately after the General Election upon the forming of the next government, expressing the councils concern in regards to the future of adult skills funding.

·         To ask our three Members of Parliament after the General Election to lobby the appropriate Secretary of State in regards to adult skills and its future funding, emphasising the specific concerns raised in regards to Oldham.”

AMENDMENT

Councillor Harkness MOVED and Councillor Williams SECONDED

“This Council notes:

- with great concern the announcement made by the Coalition Government of a further 25% reduction in the budget for adult skills for 2015/16.

This adult budget is the money which funds adults returning to education who have not achieved through the school system.  It includes money which we use to fund 19 year olds who have not completed their Level 2 or Level 3 courses by the age of 18 (either because of their low attainment at 16, or other factors in their lives).

It also funds adults of any age coming back into education later in life, and it supports English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) which plays such an important role in community cohesion.

The serious negative impact of this cut on Oldham should not be underestimated.

Currently, 60% of Oldham resident adults hold qualifications no higher than Level 2. As high skilled jobs in the City Region demand a skill level of 4-6, and it is estimated that 50% of future jobs will require this level of skills.

Indeed, many of those 60% of adults, who did not achieve well at school, will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

(time limit 30 minutes)

Motion 1

Councillor Heffernan to MOVE and Councillor Sedgwick to SECOND:

This Council notes that in the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale local residents have since 2010 been encouraged to sign up for the “Love Rochdale Card”, a loyalty card scheme managed by the Rochdale Town Centre Management Company.

The scheme rewards residents for shopping locally at over 200 shops and businesses in the town centre.

This Council recognises the merits of establishing a similar scheme for Oldham and its district centres as this helps support local businesses, local jobs and the local economy, as well as being better for the environment and promoting variety and choice on the high street.

This Council resolves to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board to examine (in conjunction with the District Executives) the practicalities and timescale of introducing a shop local loyalty card scheme in Oldham and its district centres to encourage our residents to shop locally and so support our local economy.

Motion 2

Councillor Murphy to MOVE and Councillor McCann to SECOND:

This Council notes that:

-           Section 106 planning contributions have historically been spent locally to benefit residents in the immediate area of a development. This has led to enhancements to the physical environment such as play spaces and community gardens that have been enjoyed by local people.

-           The Community Infrastructure Levy, being introduced by Government to replace the Section 106 planning contributions, is prescriptive with Council being permitted by law to only spend 15% of the CIL planning gain in the immediate area and 85% being returned to the centre.

-           This means that, unlike Section 106, there may be little direct benefit to the local community.

Council believes that:

-           The prescription by central government of the 15:85 split is contrary to the spirit of localism and runs contrary to the Government’s intention that the arrangements for the levy should be ‘fairer and more transparent’.

-           As well as deciding the actual amount of the levy, local authorities should be able to decide for themselves what percentage of the CIL planning gain is spent in the immediate area and how much is returned to the centre.

Council resolves to:

-           Ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stating the Council’s position that local authorities should be able to determine the split of the levy between the local community and the centre.

-           Ask the Cabinet Member for Planning to request officers investigate the merits of whether the Council should apply to the Government for the right to make its own determination of the split under the provisions of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, and to bring a report back to Council on this issue.

Motion 1

Councillor Heffernan MOVED and Councillor Sedgwick SECONDED

“This Council notes that in the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale local residents have since 2010 been encouraged to sign up for the “Love Rochdale Card”, a loyalty card scheme managed by the Rochdale Town Centre Management Company.

The scheme rewards residents for shopping locally at over 200 shops and businesses in the town centre.

This Council recognises the merits of establishing a similar scheme for Oldham and its district centres as this helps support local businesses, local jobs and the local economy, as well as being better for the environment and promoting variety and choice on the high street.

This Council resolves to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board to examine (in conjunction with the District Executives) the practicalities and timescale of introducing a shop local loyalty card scheme in Oldham and its district centres to encourage our residents to shop locally and so support our local economy.”

Councillor Murphy spoke in support of the motion

Councillor McLaren as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Board accepted the motion.

A vote was then taken on the MOTION.

Councillor Heffernan did not exercise his right of reply.

On being put to the VOTE, FIFTY FIVE VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of the MOTION with NONE cast AGAINST and TWO ABSTENTIONS.  The MOTION was therefore CARRIED.

RESOLVED that the Overview and Scrutiny Board examine (in conjunction with the District Executives) the practicalities and timescale in introducing a shop local loyalty card scheme in Oldham and its district centres to encourage our residents to shop locally and so support our local economy.

Motion 2

Councillor Murphy MOVED and Councillor McCann SECONDED

“This Council notes that:

-           Section 106 planning contributions have historically been spent locally to benefit residents in the immediate area of a development. This has led to enhancements to the physical environment such as play spaces and community gardens that have been enjoyed by local people.

-               The Community Infrastructure Levy, being introduced by Government to replace the Section 106 planning contributions, is prescriptive with Council being permitted by law to only spend 15% of the CIL planning gain in the immediate area and 85% being returned to the centre.

-               This means that, unlike Section 106, there may be little direct benefit to the local community.

Council believes that:

-               The prescription by central government of the 15:85 split is contrary to the spirit of localism and runs contrary to the Government’s intention that the arrangements for the levy should be ‘fairer and more transparent’.

-               As well as deciding the actual amount of the levy, local authorities should be able to decide for themselves what percentage of the CIL planning gain is spent in the immediate area and how much is returned to the centre.

Council resolves to:

-                Ask the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stating the Council’s position that local authorities should be able to determine the split of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

(time limit 8 minutes):-

To note the Minutes of the Joint Authority meetings and the relevant spokespersons to respond to questions from Members

Minutes of the Joint Authorities were submitted as follows:

Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority              5^th December 2014

Police and Crime Panel                                                     28^th November 2014

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority                        4^th December 2014

National Park Authority                                                      5^th December 2014

Transport for Greater Manchester                                     16^th January 2015

Greater Manchester Combined Authority                                   19^th December 2014

                                                                                                30^th January 2015

Joint GMCA/AGMA Executive                                           19^th December 2014

                                                                                                30^th January 2015

Councillor Williamson asked a question in relation the minutes of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, 30^th January 2015, Minute 05/15, PSR Development Fund – Domestic Abuse Funding related to the wording of the minutes and the use of funding within the GM Development Fund to support domestic abuse – the wording does not read well and could this be brought to the attention of officers.

Councillor McMahon responded that he would raise the issue with the relevant officers to amend the wording.

Councillor Heffernan asked a question in relation to the minutes of the National Park Authority, 5^th December 2014, attendance, and asked why the authority had not been represented.

Councillor McLaren responded that he could not attend the meeting on 5^th December 2014 as the National Park Authority had not confirmed his representation until 23^rd December 2014.  He had attended all meetings since that date.

Councillor Heffernan asked a question in relation to the minutes of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, 4^th December 2014, Minute 68, Corporate Plan/Integrated Risk Management Plan 2015-28 and asked that the Council respond to the changes proposed to flammability tests.  All Councils had worked together 27 years ago for these to come into force and asked for these not to be ignored.

Councillor Dillon asked a question in relation to the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee minutes, 16 January 2015, Minute 14/70, Metrolink 2017 and referred to the routes and operations being looked at for Metrolink and if employment opportunities were being taken into account and asked whether the Leader or spokesperson had this in mind and also comments on the six-minute service to the Borough.

Councillor Hibbert responded that with the second city crossing, some stops were being closed down but members were looking at issues raised.  He also commented that the six minute service would commence when the Exchange Square Extension was completed.

RESOLVED that:

1.            the minutes of the Joint Authorities as detailed in the report be noted.

2.            The questions raised and observations made, along with the responses, given be noted.

(time limit 7 minutes)

Minutes of the Partnership Meetings were submitted as follows:

Oldham Care and Support Company                              19^th November 2014

Health and Wellbeing Board                                             20^th January 2015

                                                                                                17^th February 2015

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Partnership meetings as detailed in report be noted.

Consideration was given a report which provided information on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) developed between Greater Manchester local authorities, Greater Manchester Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and NHS England which created a framework for the delegation and ultimate devolution of health and social care responsibilities to Greater Manchester.  The report also set out the actions required by Oldham to meet the requirement of the MoU and the timelines within which the actions would need to be completed. 

As detailed in the report, the integration of health and social care within and across Greater Manchester had been a major priority of Greater Manchester’s growth and reform strategies.

The 10 AGMA local authorities, CCGs and NHS England have agreed the next step in the process was the development of a “Road Map” which would set out what was required from all parties to progress to full devolution of NHS England pwers and funding to Greater Manchester by April 2016.  The “Road Map” would include the development of plans for all localities to work with their local CCGs for the production of “whole system” local areas plans by April 2016.

The report outlined the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding, the areas of the Health and Social Care System to be included in the agreement, the key enablers of the transformation programme and shared principles which would support the development and implementation of a Strategic Sustainability Plan for Greater Manchester.

Councillor Murphy made an observation on the Devolution

Councillor Bates spoke against the Devolution

Councillor McMahon spoke in support of the Devolution

Councillor Sykes spoke in support of the Devolution

On being put to the vote FIFTY FIVE VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of the MOTION with ONE VOTE cast AGAINST and ONE ABSTENTION.  The MOTION was therefore CARRIED.

RESOLVED that:

1.       the report regarding the Devolution of Health and Social Care Responsibilities to Greater Manchester which was considered and agreed at the Joint GMCA and AGMA Executive Board meeting on 27^th February 2015 be noted.

2.       the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by representatives of AGMA, GM CCGs and NHS England be agreed and endorsed and that the important and significant step in the development of a new collaborative partnership for health and social care in Greater Manchester be recognised.

3.       the implications, current position and next steps for Oldham as set out in the report be endorsed.

Consideration was given to a report which noted the outcome of the hearing undertaken by the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee in respect of a complaint against Councillor Bates. 

The Standards Hearing Sub-Committee had resolved to reports its findings to Council.   The Standards Hearing Sub-Committee also recommended to Council that Councillor Bates be censured.

Councillor Moores as the Chair of the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee MOVED the report and Councillor Sedgwick SECONDED.

Councillor McMahon spoke on the report

Councillor Bates was offered a right of reply but made no comment.

Councillor Garry spoke on the report.

Councillor McMahon apologised on behalf of the Council to Mr. Crompton and thanked him for the work he had done on behalf of the community.

On being put to the vote FIFTY THREE VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of the MOTION with TWO VOTES cast AGAINST and TWO ABSTENTIONS.  The MOTION was therefore CARRIED.

RESOLVED that:

1.            The findings of the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee be noted.

2.            Councillor Bates be censured.

NOTE:  Councillor Williams entered the room during this item but took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Consideration was given to a report which sought approval of a policy statement on community cohesion and set out a set of principles for the Council to follow.  The Council had also been asked to sign up to three initiatives related to building good community relations which included:

·         The Greater Manchester Pledge of Hope and Guidance on Peaceful Protest;

·         The Bruxelles Declaration of Pledge to Peace; and

·         The We Stand Together Initiative.

A Council policy statement on community cohesion had been developed and it was intended that this be adopted by Council.  The statement sets out principles which would inform decisions over priorities or to help to determine the circumstances in which the Council would need to take action.  Examples included decisions about priorities for resource allocation; the ways in which the Council communicates with or involved residents or businesses; tackled anti-social behaviour; terms and conditions of Council staff; support the inclusion of disabled people; activity which encouraged positive interactions between people from different backgrounds; word which supported the integration of new migrants to Oldham and prevention and resolution of conflict within communities.

The Bruxelles Declaration of Pledge to Peace was established on 28^th November 2011 at the European Parliament in Brussels.  The pledge aimed to create a network of people with a “shared vision of the value of peace, who have the potential to create, promote and communicate tangible projects and initiatives” which could promote peace within their communities.  The Council had been asked to become a signatory to this.  If the Council agrees, Oldham would be the first local authority in the UK to make this commitment.

The pledge of hope and guidance on peaceful protest had been developed by a group of Greater Manchester faith leaders in discussion with the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner.  The pledge sought to balance the right of individuals to peaceful protest against those of others who may be affected by a protest which encouraged that protests be undertaken in responsible ways which did not cause division or incite hatred.

The We Stand Together was a national campaign which sought to celebrate difference, challenge hatred and intolerance and build a stronger United Kingdom.  This included a focus on tackling hate crime.  It had arisen from concern about the impact of recent terrorism and extremism incidents.  It was intended that a public awareness campaign would stimulate a wide range of community activity which would bring people together and encouraged mutual understanding and respect.

RESOLVED that:

1.         The policy statement about community cohesion be approved.

2.         The Council become a signatory to the Bruxelles Pledge to Peace be agreed.

3.         the Greater Manchester Pledge of Hope and Guidance on Peaceful Protest be endorsed.

4.         the We Stand Together campaign be endorsed and promoted.

Consideration was given to the first quarterly welfare reform research which was a follow up to the latest annual “Impact of Welfare Reform in Oldham” briefing which was presented to members in October 2014.

The report and accompanying dashboard provided a high-level analysis of the impact of welfare reform on vulnerable groups in Oldham.  The report also identified the common demographic characteristics of people and groups affected by the key provisions of welfare reform and those residents who used local services to mitigate the impact. 

The report looked at a wide range of local and national data available on Oldham residents affected by welfare reform.  Analysis suggested that some groups were more vulnerable than others as well as multiple impacts on certain groups and these were highlighted within the report.

A question was raised with regard to the timetable list in the report and the Cabinet Member for Finance and HR clarified that the timetable that was for receipt of reports to Cabinet.

A question was raised regarding the community shop and the Leader of the Council responded members were committed to the same objective, that the community shop was being investigated but funding could not be agreed without a business plan

RESOLVED that the report and accompanying dashboard be noted.

RESOLVED that the item be WITHDRAWN.

Consideration was given to a report which informed Members of actions that had been taken following previous Council meetings and provided feedback on other issues raised at the meeting.  An updated timetable was requested with regard to the Dog Fouling Motions approved at a previous Council meeting.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.