Agenda item

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following two questions:

 

Question 1 – Closure of Oldham Tax Office

 

“My first question tonight concerns the proposed closure of the Oldham HMRC Tax Office at Phoenix House on Union Street.

This move will represent a massive job loss for Oldham and a further blow to our Borough’s public sector, following on top of this Government’s proposal to close both of our court houses and the significant cuts in local government spending announced recently in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement.

The Government is proposing to close dozens of other local HMRC tax offices and consolidate their operations in large regional offices in Manchester and twelve other cities across the regions.

Such a move makes no financial sense – Manchester’s office rentals are second only to London, whilst Oldham’s are well under half the price.

Public contact with HMRC is largely online or via email or the telephone, rather than by personal visit, therefore there is no need to locate these offices to busy and expensive, cities.  Rather common sense suggests that to save money this Government should attend choose to expand the Oldham operation into a new regional centre and migrate Civil Service jobs into our Borough.

Sites like Union Street (next to the Town Centre Metrolink stop) and Hollinwood Junction (adjacent to the motorway network and the Hollinwood tram stop) are easibly accessible for staff and could represent alternative affordable locations.

This is the approach taken in London where HMRC are regionalising to Croydon and Stratford, rather than central London.

Can I therefore ask the Leader if he will join me in writing to the Chancellor and the Head of HMRC offering to work with them to bring a new regional centre to Oldham and the many new jobs that will come with it?”

 

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, responded that he was suspicious about who was acting in Oldham’s interest.  There had not been any discussions with Leaders in Greater Manchester about the court services being cut or about HMRC moving out of town.   There were people taking advantage of rationalisation under the cloak of austerity.  It made no sense to take prime office location in Manchester.  There had been no overview by Government and there was a need for a transparent assessment to be done. He agreed of the need to make a direct representation.  The Leader was happy to facilitate a meeting whether through his role as Council Leader or as one of the MPs.

 

Question 2 – Wilshaw Report

 

“For my second question, I would like to return to a subject on which I have consistently expressed concern – namely the education of the children of this Borough.

Like any parent, I place the education of my children up at the top of my personal priorities, so like many parents in this Borough I was extremely disappointed to hear that the Head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, recently announced that Oldham was one of sixteen authorities where less than 60% of our children are studying at a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ school. 

This damning admission means that almost half of all of our children are being failed by some of our schools and this Administration and this is attested to in recent announcements about examination grades.

Parents have the right to expect that education will be of a quality that will allow their children to reach their full potential.  Why is it that we as an education authority continue to fail our young people?  I would like to ask the Leader what is being done to address this Oldham education ‘gap’ and why there continues to be a delay in the publication of the findings and recommendations of the much-awaited Oldham Education Commission?  This so call Commission will have cost council tax payers more than £100,000 and yet it is still to see the light of day. 

We needed to start work to improve the education for our young people months or years ago, rather than keep hiding behind this much promised report.  Now that the Oldham West and Royton by-election is out of the way, surely there can be no further justification for any further delay – why can’t we see it now?  And why can we not start to improve the lot for our children now!”

 

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, responded that he had been handed the draft report.  Publication would take place in the new year.  It was not only about writing the report but putting the foundations in place for a new approach in Oldham, which included partnership and dealing with a complex education system.  There was a cost, however, there were 57,000 children in Oldham which was less than 2 pounds per child for the Commission cost and this was a good investment.  He referred to the point that under the Liberal Democrat Administration the number of school improvement officers had been reduced from 40 to 2.  He recognised that education was in a mess and, as a parent, this was not good enough.  The day of excuses were gone, if schools could not improve and lacked leadership and more than enough time had gone, the Council would go in and take action if the school was under local authority control or work with the Regional Schools Commissioner if not.  The performance of primary schools was good.  Fundamental issues would have to be put right, it was not about blame but to take action where required and make education everybody’s business.

 

The Leader of the Conservative Group, Councillor John Hudson, asked the following question to the Leader:

 

Councillor Hudson referred to Hotel Future and asked where plans were up to with Hotel Future with funding and sponsorship as it had gone quiet on that project and it was an integral part of modernising the town.  Could the Leader explain where the Council was up to with the project?

 

Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, thanked Councillor Hudson for his support of the regeneration projects.  There was a need for a decent hotel in Oldham, the offer in the town centre was non-existent.  This would also encourage trade to the QE Hall.  Cabinet had agreed to pursue Hotel Future.  Further financial information was being assessed as well as investigations into external funding, as other people would need to come to the table and the Government should contribute.  The Leader wanted to ensure the project was getting value for money for the taxpayer and others make a contribution.

 

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 Malik to Councillor Hibbert:

 

“Will the relevant Cabinet Member report upon recent claims for compensation that have been lodged by drivers as a result of damage to their car due to the poor state of the roads in Oldham over the past three years? What amount of compensation that has been paid to the successful claimants?”

 

Councillor Hibbert responded that for the past four financial years the numbers of claims had reduced and that more claims were being defended by the Council due to the improved repair and inspection regime.  In 2012/13 there had been 272 claims, in 2014/15 there had been 77 claims and to date in 2015/16 there had been 37 claims.  In terms of the amounts paid out, there was also a significant reduction in the amount being paid out, in 2012/13 £41,286.99 had been paid out; in 2014/15 £8,582.17 had been paid out and to date in 2015/16 £3,460.36 had been paid out.  Drivers had a six year time limit in which to bring a claim for property damage against the Council, so these figures were subject to change.  This proved that the technique, strategy and programme for the highways and transport system had improved beyond recognition, the Highways Department was the best in Manchester and the Cabinet Member was proud of them.

 

2.       Councillor Roberts to Councillor Brownridge:

 

“A recent study by the Local Government Association has found that the cost of paupers' funerals to local authorities has increased by 30% in the past four years to a total of £1.7m and the number of such funerals by 11%. The report also found that the highest number of pauper's funerals take place in the north west. Can the relevant Cabinet Member inform us of the level, cost and trend in pauper's funerals in Oldham and does she agree with me that the national trend is another shameful result of the austerity policies pursued by the Conservative Government?”

 

Councillor Brownridge responded that there had been an increase in the figures, the number was not high but the trend was clear.    In 2010, there had been 9 funerals costing £9,441, in 2014 there were 19 funerals costing £23,903.  From 2010 to 2014 the number of funerals had increased by 90%.  The costs associated with these funerals increased by 153%.  There was no explanation for the trend, but austerity measures were a logical conclusion.

 

3. Councillor G. Alexander to Councillor Brownridge

 

“Greater Manchester Police have advertised on social media about the penalties for dog owners who allow their dogs to foul and not clean up after them. This seems to be a Borough wide problem, does the cabinet member agree that we should use this advert as a Borough wide leaflet to inform the public of the consequences of dog fouling.  Would it be possible to place more bins around the borough?”

 

Councillor Brownridge responded that officers had been asked to liaise with the police to bring together approach with that of the ‘Love Where you Live’ campaign.  A survey of all bins would be undertaken with District Executives involved in the next few weeks.

 

4.       Councillor Blyth to Councillor Alexander:

 

“The demise of Our House after the investment of so much Council officer time and over £100K Council tax payer money is a body blow to one of this Labour Council’s pet projects.

This prominent empty building represents failure and is now a blight on the Market, surely deterring trade and being demoralising for market traders; most importantly, Our House staff have been laid off.

Can I ask the Cabinet Member what the Council is doing to re-let the empty building and, most importantly, helping staff, who have lost their jobs as a result of this farrago, to find meaningful, sustained alternate employment?”

 

Councillor Akhtar responded that at present the administrator still held the lease for this property and therefore the Council was not currently advertising this property for lettings.  However, when queries were received regarding leasing the property these were passed to the administrator and the information was retained on record should the property revert back to the Council.  In the short term the administrator remained as lessee which removed the risk to the Council of becoming liable for vacant business rates.  Our House was about offering a fairer way for Oldham residents and it was procured and delivered on the Council’s behalf by FRC Group who worked hard to make this work in what remained challenging economic times.  As for supporting the staff, the Get Oldham Working Campaign worked hard as a job brokerage service which found opportunities and had supported over 2,600 residents into work.  The agreement was that when redundancies were noted that this was handled by a specialist team within Job Centre Plus who co-ordinated the response that included working with Get Oldham Working.  This had been the agreed process and ensured that those affected received the right advice and support at the right time.  The £100,000 figure was not accurate.

 

5.       Councillor Fielding to Councillor Shah:

 

“Can the relevant cabinet member please advise whether there is a cost saving for the Council if residents access their Council services online as opposed to face to face at Customer Services. If there is indeed a saving to be had, what is Oldham Council doing to encourage and support more residents to interact with the Council through online methods?”

 

Councillor Shah responded that a re-occurring saving of £209,000 had been achieved through a customer transformation programme.  The Council had gone on-line with benefits and council tax applications and payment by direct debit.  A major supplier change was underway and expected to be formalised in February.  All customer channels were being reviewed with an ability to track performance.  An online team was available for those residents who required further support.  No further savings had been identified but there was potential to support delivery of savings through the online services.

 

6.       Councillor McLaren to Councillor Akhtar:

 

“The Radclyffe School was recently judged outstanding by OFSTED, we now have 2 outstanding secondary schools in Oldham the other being the Blue Coat School. Can the Cabinet Member please assure me that the best practise exemplified by these two schools is being shared with other schools in the borough?”

 

Councillor Akhtar responded that this had been a fantastic month with the Lifelong Learning being awarded outstanding, the Radclyffe School and Corpus Christi Primary school had been awarded outstanding.  He gave his thanks to all the staff.  Blue Coat School had been judged as outstanding since 2010.  The expertise of both schools was being used across the Borough.  The Council funded Blue Coat to lead on several topics as well as Radclyffe who led on Mathematics.  The Blue Coat school was also a national support school.  In addition to the work that the Council directly funded, the Council were supporting peer review arrangements between schools that help spread good practice.  The Council were also providing a means of schools sharing data to help identify strengths and areas of need across all schools.  The same approach applied among primary schools where there were 17 outstanding schools.  Many of these were commissioned by the Council to lead on different aspects of work and many outstanding and good schools had helped schools that were previously “requiring improvement” to become good or outstanding themselves.  The borough also had two outstanding Special Schools. The Cabinet Member took the opportunity to congratulate the staff and governors of Radclyffe and all our outstanding schools on the work they did for the borough and congratulated all schools that had been inspected by Ofsted this term for their excellent outcomes.

 

7.       Councillor Dean to Councillor Hibbert:

 

“The government are moving an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill. This amendment would mean all new tenants of socially rented homes both council and housing association would have a 5 year contract. They then would be expected to move on to private rented home or become an owner occupier after this time. The Government are refusing to give exceptions for the disabled or families with young children.
Could the cabinet member assure me he will be making represent ions both to the government and local MPs opposing this amendment; which would cause great hardship to many tenants.”

 

Councillor Hibbert responded that he understood that the Government was planning to stop social landlords offering lifetime tenancies.  Many housing providers had introduced fixed term tenancies for new tenants as a means of making best use of their existing stock.  This was particularly the case for extra care, sheltered and adapted housing or larger family homes.  The housing providers who currently operated this approach reviewed the circumstances of the tenants nearing the end of the fixed period.  In most cases, this meant extension of the fixed term tenancy.  If tenants no longer have a need for that type of accommodation, the housing provider would work with the tenant on alternative suitable housing.  The Cabinet Member hoped that the Government would not automatically consider moving tenants into owner occupation or the private rented sector after 5 years and would make serious, determined representations if that were the case.  It was ironic that many privately rented homes were previously right to buy homes which had fallen to rogue landlords which the Council was addressing.

 

8.       Councillor Murphy to Councillor Hibbert

 

“Firstly can I thank my opposite number Cllr Dave Hibbert Cabinet Member for Housing, Planning and Highways for allowing me the opportunity to be involved in the three year capital improvement programme, which I felt was very fair to all wards.

Whilst I have seen for myself the massive task in highway improvements the council has for the future, could I please ask that at the earliest possible moment the council moves the works planned at the Fraser Street/Church Road/Rochdale Road junction in both Shaw and Crompton forward from Year 2 which is 2016-17 to even sooner.

Shaw and Crompton elected members day by day grow increasing concerned at the possibility of another accident similar to that at the Milnrow Road crossing and fear that it is just a matter of time.

The local District Executive has written to reiterate the request but a commitment from the Cabinet Member and Council would go a long way in terms of reassurances.”

 

Councillor Hibbert responded that although the proposals at the Fraser Street / Church Road / Rochdale Road junction had been planned to be delivered during year 2 of the three year programme (2017/18), provision had been made to undertake elements of Preliminary Design, in advance. This initial activity was intended to help to smooth out the overall delivery of the three year Programme by potentially “slotting-in” future years’ schemes to replace earlier projects that may have been re-profiled / re-scheduled owing to unforeseen circumstances at their initial feasibility stage.  With this in mind, in year one, the intention was to carry out an element of Preliminary Design for the junction and, if the opportunity arose for the reasons discussed above, the case would be made to bring the works forward.  

 

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 by noted.