(time limit 30 minutes – maximum of 2 minutes per question and 2 minutes per response)
Minutes:
The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following questions:
1. OFSTED Children’s Services Report
“My first question to the Leader tonight concerns the recent report by OFSTED about the performance of our children’s services department and the Safeguarding Board.
In 2012, when OFSTED last published a report on these services they were judged to be Good. In the August 2015 report they were deemed to be Requiring Improvement – a significantly worsened position.
Mercifully, in the report, OFSTED affirms positively that the four children’s homes operated by the local authority “were judged to be good or outstanding in their most recent Ofsted inspection” and that “There are no widespread or serious failures that create or leave children being harmed or at risk of harm”.
I am sure that this news will at least be a relief to all members in this chamber given recent tragedies involving vulnerable children and young people elsewhere; tragedies that I have previously raised in questions to the Leader.
But the report also states damningly that “The authority is not yet delivering good protection and help for children, young people and families” and that it is “not yet delivering good care” for looked after children and young people.
OFSTED also states that “Leadership, management and governance require improvement” and that “the characteristics of good leadership are not in place”.
I am sure that like me the Leader will share the expectation of OFSTED that “all children and young people in Oldham receive the level of help, care and protection that will ensure their safety and help prepare them for adult life”.
Certainly this was an expectation that we always worked to meet during my administration and this was why the Leader was able to inherit a Good rating in the last report.
So can he therefore now tell me what plan will be put in place to ensure that our Children’s Services will be improved and our leadership, management and governance structures made fit for purpose, so that we may avoid another such damning verdict in future?”
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, responded that this was an important question and it was right to flag up the issue. Whilst the Ofsted report was not what was wanted, it was not unexpected. The Council’s budget had been cut in half, which affected the Council’s ability to reward and retain qualified staff. Staff had to do more and their casework loads were significant, complex and stressful, with referrals being up by a third. This was a national crisis in social care, with 5000 vacancies across the country for qualified social workers and new social workers needed time to develop. It was accepted the Council would have to make difficult decisions in the future. The Ofsted report was fair, though the review could have been fuller on political leadership. The Council had a plan in place to rebuild and improve.
2. Elder Abuse
“My second question concerns another group of vulnerable people – this time elderly people subjected to abuse.
Although there is much media attention focused on the abuse of children there is comparatively little given to that meted out to our elders. And here I am referring to neglect and financial and emotional abuse, as well as physical abuse.
The UK charity Action on Elder Abuse estimates that 8.6% of older people living in our communities are subject to elder abuse – over 500,000 people. Yet this is hidden from sight from the majority of people.
Breaking the statistics down a little - 60% of victims are over 80 years of age, more than 15% are over 90 years old, and almost one in five – 19% - have dementia.
Although most people have heard reports of abuse in care homes or in hospitals, the majority of older victims of abuse live in their own homes, and the majority of abusers are relatives not professionals. Most shockingly a quarter of those abused actually live with their abusers.
My second question to the Leader tonight is to ask him what is being done to address elder abuse in this Borough?”
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, responded that the Council’s responsibilities covered adults as well as children. The Council considered serious case reviews and reports, and there was not the same media interest in adult abuse as that in children. The Council had a good team in place that had picked up cases of abuse in care homes and private residences and, where there had been gaps, it had learned from them. It was really important that people in the community who had concerns reported them. The Council would look into the matter and, where a person was in danger, they would move that person to a place of safety.
Councillor Hudson, a Leader of a minority opposition group, raised the following question:
Councillor Hudson referred to Members sticking together as a co-operative Council and asked that they did not make overly-political comments when they were all trying to work to give better services to the people of Oldham
Councillor McMahon responded that he did not agree that Councillors were gratuitously political. Members debated the issues that affected the people of Oldham and there were government decisions that affected Oldham. If the Council wanted a co-operative Oldham, the first thing to do was to put party politics aside in pursuit of what was best for Oldham. There would be times when party allegiances should be put aside to fight a government that was damaging Oldham. There was no way the extensive cuts could continue and the Council still provide quality services. Members could respect each other’s political views but represented the people of Oldham and needed at times to stand up to the government and highlight what they were doing.
The Mayor reminded Members that the Council had previously agreed that, following the Leaders’ allocated questions, further questions would be taken in an order which reflected the political balance of the Council.
Members raised the following questions:
1. Councillor Fielding to Councillor Jabbar
“Will the appropriate Cabinet Member advise if the Chancellor's announcement of the misleadingly named 'national living wage' in the July budget will have any effect on the salaries of the staff of Oldham Council?”
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and HR, responded that the short the answer was that this would have no effect on the salaries of Oldham Council staff, as Oldham already responsibly paid beyond the national minimum wage rate.
When the Chancellor referred to the National Minimum Wage, this was currently £6.50 per hour and set to increase to £6.70 per hour from 1st October, and to £7.20 from 1 April 2016. By comparison, the National Living Wage recommended by the Living Wage Foundation was currently £7.85 for families to live decently in areas outside of Greater London. There was a substantial difference between what the Foundation considered a living wage and what the Chancellor was saying. The Council’s scheme covered all employees and not just those over 25, as it was not fair to pay young people less.
As long ago as April 2012, Oldham Council introduced an Oldham Living Wage of £7.11 per hour. That had now been increased to £7.85 per hour for all directorate staff. This did not include school staff and schools were being encouraged to sign up to both the Living Wage and Fair Employment Charter. Currently 80.4% of schools were paying the Living Wage and the Council was working to raise this to 100%.
2. Councillor Judge to Councillor Brownridge
“We are only months away from the government’s compulsory micro-chipping of dogs. Can the relevant Cabinet Member please tell us what Oldham Council are doing to help the process go as smoothly as possible? Can they also tell us what flexibility there is in the legislation to help Oldham tackle the problems of things like dangerous dogs that attack children and other pets, marauding dogs that attack livestock, abandoned dogs, dog mess and stolen or lost dogs?”
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Co-Operatives, responded that the Council was be working with colleagues in Greater Manchester to raise awareness of the changes in the microchipping of dogs. The Council had already purchased a stock of microchips to assist dogs owners with micro-chipping and will be promoting this.
The main change in the legislation for the Council was the ability to issue a 14 days’ notice for non-compliance, when it was informed or became aware that a dog is not microchipped. The Council was still awaiting clarification on the process of enforcement which could involve either a fixed penalty notice or be addressed via the courts.
The majority of dog owners were responsible the Council had very few cases where dogs posed a risk to animals or children. The Council would continue to work with the Police where there was a dangerous dog. The Council’s animal warden service would continue to investigate any incidents where an injury has not occurred and would investigate any incident involving attacks on livestock, and would prosecute.
With regard to dog mess it was likely the Council would look to consolidate existing Orders to set out what precisely what was acceptable in public areas. This would be an improvement, but the problem lay with irresponsible dog owners and, where Councillors or members of the public could provide evidence, the Council would prosecute.
3. Councillor Mushtaq to Councillor Hibbert
“There's a significant amount of road improvement taking place in the borough, for which I'm personally grateful as I'm sure are residents. However as I have raised previously there is a concern with the longevity of the improvements. Can the relevant cabinet member inform me if the condition of the re-laid surfaces is monitored especially over the winter months and if any steps are taken to ensure we get the best value for the money being spent?”
Councillor David Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways responded that the highway improvements that had taken place around the borough were made up of multiple solutions and treatments depending on the current condition of the carriageway.
In recent years Oldham Council had carried out a preventative treatment programme that applied a treatment to carriageways that were starting to show signs of deterioration and required an improvement in Macrotexture and skid resistance.
The treatment used was Ralumac Microasphalt which was a duel-layered thin surface system designed to extend the residual life of the carriageway by up to 12 years.
The treatment was not without its flaws and the Council would endeavour to ensure that best quality finish was applied throughout the Borough.
4. Councillor Harkness to Councillor Akhtar
“I welcome the establishment of a new project to offer employment opportunities for young people with special educational needs and / or disabilities.
Regrettably job seekers with learning disabilities are often discriminated against by employers and consequently they can encounter significant difficulties in finding work.
Can the Cabinet Member please provide me with an update on the progress that has so far been made on this project, particularly on the status of our arrangements with our partners New Bridge School, Remploy, Oldham Care and Support, Oldham College and Pure Innovation?
And can he also tell me what is being done to support older job seekers with learning disabilities through the Get Oldham Working programme?”
Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills responded that there were several partnership arrangements in place that offered employment opportunities for young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities.
Pure Innovation and Oldham College offered a Supported Internship programme, which was an employment-based course that gave students with learning disabilities/difficulties the opportunity to develop employability skills in a real work place surrounded by other working people. The expected outcome of the programme was that employment was secured after the academic year. The programme would commence with 10 interns on the 14th September 2015, with 9 young people placed within different Council departments and 1 within the Pennine Care; each individual would experience a different placement each term so that they could explore roles and develop relevant skills.
Pure Innovation worked with the young people to offer the employment and progression support. The College delivered a ‘preparing for employment’ qualification alongside the work placements, together with English and maths which were mandatory for all students who were undertaking a learning programme through a college.
New Bridge Horizons were exploring a partnership with Manchester College to deliver an additional Supported Internship programme locally where they would place 10 students on 10 week work placement over 3 rotations, with a view to securing a job on completion. To date, New Bridge had potentially identified 6 young people for the Get Oldham Working programme.
Remploy had agreed to offer employability support towards the end of the work placements as they had existing employer relations with large companies.
The Council was continuing to work with Oldham Care and Support. There was support available for older job seekers with learning disabilities through the Get Oldham Working programme. Get Oldham Working (GOW) was a direct referral agency to Remploy’s Work Choice programme. This meant that any residents with a disability or learning difficulty could be directly referred to Work Choice by GOW without need for their Job Centre Plus advisor making that referral.
There would be an event on 29th September to discuss and agree the GM Vision for Employment for young people with additional needs and actions going forward for a GM strategy on employment/preparation for employment for disabled young people.
At this point in the meeting the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.
RESOLVED that the questions asked and responses provided be noted.