(time limit 30 minutes – maximum of 2 minutes per question and 2 minutes per response)
Minutes:
The Leader of the Main Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following two questions:
Question 1: Oldham Deprived and Unhappy
“My first question tonight concerns a disturbing recent report published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) which has identified Oldham as the most deprived town in England.
In the study conducted by the ONS factors such as income, employment, health, education, skills and training, and crime were considered.
The study found that Oldham was the most deprived overall, with over 60% of our areas ranked in the most deprived 20% of all the areas of England.
This is an astonishing fact when you think it includes areas in the North East, Midlands, Yorkshire and elsewhere in the North West all of which are better than us!
I and my colleagues take no pride in topping this league table!
This time last year there was another survey published by the Rightmove estate agency chain; the Happy at Home survey asked UK homeowners questions about twelve factors relating to their experiences living in their area.
Oldham was placed 106th of 130 local authorities. And this was the aggregate score – we scored even worse on contentment and community safety at 123rd out of 130.
So, Oldham has once again been identified as bot the most deprived Borough in England, and one of the least happy towns to live in the UK.
These are hardly accolades that we as elected local leaders aspire to; and they are hardly a great advertisement that will attract new business and new residents to our Borough as their location of choice.
No we all know – because we live here – that all is not doom and gloom in our Borough. We have great people, with our famed Northern humour, a ‘can do’ attitude and a proud history of industry and diversity. We have great countryside and culture, but these national headlines do us no favour.
There has been much talk in this chamber of the significant physical regeneration that is being undertaken in the Borough, regeneration paid for ultimately by our hard-pressed Council Tax payers. But if this physical regeneration does not lead to a real improvement in the economic fortunes and the physical and mental well-being of our most deprived and unhappy citizens it will have failed in what I see as one of its key objectives.
So my question to the Leader tonight. What are we going to do to get ourselves not only off the top of this league table of most deprived but actually into another league altogether.”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council, responded that she was as disappointed as every member was but there had been a massive response of support on social media and email. The study was a bizarre piece of research, picked up by a lazy journalist and having read the whole report was even more appalled. The report did not talk about the Borough of Oldham, only built up urban areas. Oldham had gotten into the list of 200 towns but Tameside didn’t and there was not a lot of difference. Tameside had not qualified to be looked at in this way. The study identified areas which included St. Mary’s, Werneth, Hollinwood and Coldhurst which have indices of deprivation, the study did not include areas such as Shaw, Royton, Chadderton and Saddleworth. It was interesting that in the Sunday Times Saddleworth was named as one of the top ten places to live. The study had been based on the 2011 census when we did not have the Metrolink or started the journey of regeneration of the Old Town Hall, Odeon cinema and other businesses. Councillor Stretton accepted that there was still more to do. It was still true that there was deprivation in those wards. Councillor Stretton accepted Councillor Sykes’ offer. The Council needed to challenge at Greater Manchester and national level that if there was a problem here, they should not be knocking us but giving us the money to invest in those places and in the recommendations of the Oldham Education and Skills Commission. She said the MP’s would assist. It needed to be a collective response on the attack made on the Borough which was grossly unfair.
Question 2: Teenage Pregnancy
“My second question to the Leader tonight also references a recent publication by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) that equally makes disturbing news.
According to the ONS, Oldham’s teenage pregnancy rate is now the highest in Greater Manchester. In 2014, 156 girls aged fifteen to seventeen became pregnant – this is a rate of 34.7 per 1,000 girls in this age bracket.
This is clearly concerning.
In October 2014, I rose to ask the then Leader a question about our Borough’s appalling record of tooth decay amongst children, but at that time I was also pleased to congratulate the Oldham Teenage Pregnancy Partnership on their work in reducing the teenage pregnancy rate by almost two thirds since 1998.
These latest figures demonstrate that there is still a lot of work to be done.
I am sure that in some instances the pregnancy is planned and the news is received with great joy, but in others this can be a very troubling occasion.
Frequently these teenagers begin motherhood at a great disadvantage, without the maturity, skills, financial and emotional support necessary to be most successful in that role.
Dependent often upon welfare benefits and socially isolated, they can begin their parenting role on the back-foot. And despite their best efforts, they can also be subjected to disapproval and vilification by family members, by their peers and by the press, being dubbed ‘gym slip mothers’. Sadly there have also been documented instances where medical professionals also share this prejudice.
So for my second question tonight, I would like to ask the Leader what is being done to ensure that the rates of unwanted teenage pregnancy in this Borough continue to decline and also to ensure that teenage mothers receive the support that they deserve in taking on the challenging responsibilities of parenthood at such a young age.”
Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council, responded that this was a worrying statistic. Some will have made a conscious choice, but for many it was not and it was the most vulnerable who found themselves in the position, and who would have least support from family to help them navigate that time in their life. It was true to say that teenage pregnancy occurs in relatively small numbers but a few pregnancies can skew statistics but this was still not acceptable. The Leader agreed to task officers to find out why the increase as this should be the first step, and look to address all of the factors that were discovered during the investigation. Councillor Stretton assured members that the Council would pull together whatever resources were needed to prevent this happening in the numbers at present.
The Leader of the UKIP Group, Councillor Peter Klonowski, asked the following question to the Leader of the Council:
With the changes to legislation on ethical approach to businesses and the proposed changes to procurement, does the Council consider it appropriate to have representation on the board and dealing with Oldham Property Partnership, the company was owned by Brookhouse Group, part of an aggregate group with a tax haven in Luxembourg. Also, would the Council consider setting up a scrutiny procedure about future Council developments so they do not involve companies based in tax havens?
Councillor McMahon raised a point of order as this claim had arisen during the Parliamentary by-election and UKIP through their solicitors had withdrawn their complaint and said it would not be repeated again.
Councillor Stretton did not respond to the question.
The Mayor reminded the meeting that Council had agreed that, following the Leaders’ allocated questions, questions would be taken in an order which reflected the political balance of the Council.
1. Councillor Roberts to Councillor Akhtar
“Can the relevant Cabinet Member comment on the potential effect on Oldham Schools’ budgets of the new Government consultation on a new national school funding formula which has recently been announced. Reports suggest that inner city schools will be adversely affected with money being redistributed to shire counties. There is also the implication that local authorities will receive less money to help, for example, with raising school standards and carrying out statutory duties as more money may go directly to schools.”
Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, responded that the consultation on school funding was published on 7th March and runs until 17th April 2016. As the first of two planned consultations, this consultation focused on the proposed principles of a new national funding formula and the factors that should be included in it.
It was proposed that the national funding formula be based on four factors: an age–weighted per-pupil sum, an amount based on additional pupil need such as low prior attainment, deprivation, English being an additional language, a lump sum for each school (greater for small schools in more sparsely populated areas) and a geographical factor. This consultation covered whether or not these were the right factors to be included, but did not suggest any weightings that might be given to them. Until suggested weightings were known it was not possible to model what the impact of the formula might be on any particular school or local authority area. The council was well aware, however, of the significant pressures on school budgets that already existed and were likely to remain once a national formula was in place.
It was noted that local authorities would receive less funding for their work with schools but it was not possible to accurately forecast the decrease until the second phase of the government consultation.
2. Councillor Fielding to Councillor Jabbar
“Tesco Failsworth Store along with other Tesco Branches had recently reduced it’s Monday – Saturday opening hours from 24 hours to 6am – 11pm. Can I ask the relevant Cabinet Member does this affect the rateable value of the store and the amount that we collect from this and other branches of Tesco in business rates?”
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources, responded that a change in business’s opening hours did not affect the Rateable Value of a property for the purposes of business rates and as such this would not impact the Council’s collection of business rates from Tesco. The rateable value of a property was determined by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and was based on property rental values at 1st April 2008. It was possible that a material change to a property, the environment or a change in use could affect the rateable value. However, a change in opening hours was not a consideration for the VOA in determining the Rateable Value.
3. Councillor Haque to Councillor Jabbar
“What has the Council done or achieved in reducing sickness absence and associated costs since Labour took control in 2011 and do we have any information how well or otherwise our managers comply with the Council’s policy?”
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources, responded that at the last Council meeting Councillor Blyth had attacked the Administration on this issue and criticised managers for not enforcing policy. This provided an opportunity to set the record straight. The outgoing Liberal Democrats had left the Council with a year-end absence figure of almost 11½ days per employee on average. The administration reduced this year on year to 8 days in March 2014. In 2010/11 only 35% had nil absence in the year. Under Labour control this had almost doubled to more than 60%. Over 60% did not take a single day of sick leave. The costs of staff sickness absence in 2010/11 to the present time had almost halved and agency engagement because of sickness had reduced by 13% in the 2 years 2013 - 15. Sickness absence was being scrutinised by the Performance and Value for Money Select Committee on a regular basis where the Deputy Cabinet Member had given an update to a recent meeting of the Committee. At a time when staff were managing the organisation through a difficult situation, staff were doing a fantastic job. There were no attendance targets under the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Administration introduced targets four years ago which were first set at 10 days, then 8 and not 6 as performance had improved over time.
4. Councillor Williamson to Councillor Brownridge
“Yesterday was UN World Water Day (Tuesday 22nd March).
In July last year a motion I was proud to co-sponsor was passed in this Chamber regarding water poverty. This called on the Government to end ‘water poverty’ within the lifetime of this Parliament and committed this Council to carry out some specific actions to “promote (the) awareness of, and access to, the support schemes available to customers facing ‘water poverty’.”
I think the likelihood of this Government ending ‘water poverty’ anytime soon is nil, but I would like to ask the Cabinet member for an update on what has been done regarding the actions agreed by this Council?
These were to:
· Promote the availability of these support schemes on-line, in our publications, in our public buildings, and at public events, as part of the ‘Make the Most of Your Money’ and ‘Warm Homes’ campaigns.
· Work with United Utilities and the United Utilities Trust to offer training to elected members and front-line staff so they can actively promote them.
· Offer this training to staff and volunteers from social landlords and other partners.
· Support the research being undertaken by United Utilities to establish greater public acceptance for the social tariff and to identify the most effective ways to engage and support ‘harder-to-reach’ customers.
· Support an application to the United Utilities Trust for funding to deliver, through partner agencies, money advice and financial literacy services targeted at ‘water poor’ customers.
Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, summarised activity that was ongoing which included initiatives under the warm homes scheme, poverty pledges and the partnership approach taken across all sectors. The complete response would be circulated to all elected members.
5. Councillor Malik to Councillor Jabbar
“Is the relevant Cabinet member able to explain the implications of the recent announcement of changes to Business Rates for the future finances of Oldham Council and our ability to pay for essential council services for our local community?”
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources responded that the Council, along with other Councils in Greater Manchester, would be piloting the introduction of 100% Business Rates Retention from April 2017, which was three years ahead of schedule. The Council welcomed the opportunity to be able to shape the new system and make a positive contribution to the new Local Government Finance regime. As with all new initiatives, the devil would be in the detail and the Council would work to safeguard the position for Oldham as far as possible. However, it would be important to continue to maximise Council income from business rates and council tax to enable the funding of essential services in Oldham. The Chancellor had also announced other changes which included permanently doubling Small Business Rates Relief and increasing the threshold for this relief from April 2017.
Changes to Small Business Rate Relief were obviously going to be welcomed by the businesses that would benefit from this and the Government had promised to compensate Council from the loss of rating income in the form of a grant. This would extend the grant funding that was currently received from the current rating relief scheme. It was to hoped that this would encourage small business set up and support our local economy.
It was too early for detailed figures but this would be reported to Council as soon as possible. The Council was investing in the regeneration of the borough. This would boost business rate income and the Council would also actively support business initiatives and invest in the borough with the aim of boosting business rate income.
At this point in the meeting, the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.
RESOLVED that the questions asked and the responses provided be noted.