Agenda item

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

 

Question 1:  Local Patients Failed by ‘Inadequate’ Trust Damned in Report

 

“My first question to the Leader tonight relates to the very disturbing findings of the report published last month by the Quality Care Commission (QCC) about our local Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust. 

The Commission found the Trust to be providing ‘inadequate’ services overall, with several departments requiring ‘improvement’. 

At the Royal Oldham Hospital, inspectors were concerned about ‘suitable and appropriate medical staffing’, especially in critical care, maternity, gynaecology and children and young people’s services.

In young people’s services it was found that there were no consultants in place after 5 pm.  As though our children only get sick nine to five!

And in the high dependency unit, many standards for critical care were ‘not being met’ and that it was only during the inspection that ‘adequate’ staffing levels were provided, when for three years management knew of the shortfall.

Whilst none of us want to have to receive high dependency care, if we do, we surely have the right to expect to be treated to the highest standard in a unit with sufficient staff?

All of these deficiencies should be of great concern to us as the patients being most let down are amongst the most vulnerable patients in our hospital.

And can we be clear ‘let down’ means pain and death that could be avoided! 

So where does the fault lie?  Not apparently with the staff described as ‘caring’ who continue to do their best with inadequate resources and numbers; instead it lies with the Trust Board and senior management whose conduct is described as ‘inadequate’.

I have been told that aside from health professionals, there are no Oldham residents directly involved in the Improvement Board and Plan put in place to attempt to address these serious concerns; can the Leader confirm if this is true?  If this is true, why is there no Oldham citizen directly involved in making sure our Hospital and Pennine Trust improves?

This cannot, and should not, just be left to the so called health professionals; a number of which have close working and contractual arrangements with Pennine Acute Trust!  Does she agree with me this is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs and a scandal that there is no one from our Borough representing our citizens?  Can the Leader also tell me what we are doing as an authority to put pressure on the Trust Board to address these shocking deficiencies in performance before the Trust goes into terminal decline?  Anything I and my colleagues can do to support her and her colleagues in this matter we will.”

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that she shared his concerns about the Care Quality Commission report and was appalled to only discover the details when the report was leaked to the press, and only as a result of the leak the Council became aware there would be an Improvement Board.  Councillor Stretton and the Leaders of Bury and Rochdale wrote to the Chief Executive of Manchester City Council as Chair of the Improvement Board and reflected that there were three other borough’s residents affected by the report.  The Leader agreed with the concerns of the performance.  A meeting had been requested with David Dalton, the first of which had taken place on the day of Council.  Concerns were expressed similar to what had just been said  and it was agreed to meet again to discuss these concerns further.  It was agreed that urgent intervention was needed with the severe failings that were outlined in the report.  The Council would be meeting with whoever possible from a range of organisations in turning this around.

 

Question 2:  Pokemon Go

 

“My second question tonight concerns one of the biggest social crazes to hit the UK in many a year and it is a craze that has been taken up across the whole nation by Britons of all ages but particularly the young and the young at heart – namely the phenomena called Pokemon Go.

According to Wikipedia Pokemon Go is ‘a free-to-play, location-based augmented reality game developed by Niantic for iOS and Android devices.’

What that means in plain English is that if you have the correct software on your portable electronic device that you can play ‘hunt the monster’ whilst visiting the park or crossing the street.

For those unfamiliar with the game, in essence you are able to track and catch virtual Pokeman creatures in real-world settings.  So what has this got to do with Oldham Council I hear you ask?

Well some novel ideas have been recently published about engaging Pokemon Go players with public services and in particular public health activities.  Our libraries are, whether they know it or not, virtual gyms, the only location where Pokemon players can go to ‘strengthen’ their monsters and meet with others playing the game.  Some libraries are taking advantages of this to let players know they are welcome in to play and welcome to stay afterwards.  Some are even issuing badges to players wo prove they have won a battle at the gym.  Other suggestions include:  designating historical landmarks and public facilities as Pokestops, where special items are dropped and in-app lures can be set off, with Lure Parties to cash in on the fun; hosting meet-ups, and monster rather than art trails; Community get-togethers to search for Pokemon at the weekend and fund-raising events in partnership with charities. 

Weight-loss and health campaigners can utilise one of the game’s key benefit – you have to walk to find the monsters and you are largely outdoors when you do so.  There is already some evidence of previous couch potatoes, or those holed up in their bedrooms playing Call of Duty on Xbox or Play Station are now walking and/or running around outside as they hunt on Pokemon Go.

Given the potential, I would like to ask the Leader what this Council is doing to harness this idea and whether we can work with our Youth Council to develop innovative ways in which we can use the power of this technology to connect our youngest residents with our public services?  An even more importantly use it to get people more active and therefore healthy and help tackle the ticking time bomb we have locally with obesity and in particular with obesity in young people.”

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that she had not caught any monsters yet but there were those who were obsessed.  Joking apart, the benefit in terms of getting people active was absolutely worth pursuing.  The Comms team and officers from a wider team would be more than happy to work with anyone in the chamber and work with the Youth Council on his suggestion.

 

The Leader of the Conservative Group, Councillor Hudson, asked the following question to the Leader of the Council.  Councillor Hudson was shocked by the report on ITV Granada regarding the care of an elderly couple.  He felt the report was biased and asked the Leader if she would speak to the relevant Cabinet Member with regards to a response to the biased report.

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that she had not seen the report but would look at it.  She had had discussions which had led her to believe that the report was not an accurate reflection of the situation and the statement supplied to Granada had not been used.  The Council did not commission 15 minute visits and was incensed.  She would be writing to the programme to put the Council’s point of view across.

 

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 Iqbal asked the following question:

 

“Could the Cabinet member please give an update on the Oldham Way Bridge (6th Form College Bridge). We were advised that Phase 2 of the work would start in February. Local residents and pedestrians are eager to see this bridge brought up to standard and ‘fit for purpose’. Pedestrians, especially lone females, will be concerned for their safety as at present the side panels are concealed.”

 

Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that the delay had been caused by some challenging bespoke design issues, namely the intricacies associated with unique parapet panels, the introduction of the Oldham Crest to the bridge and a solution to supply electricity to the decorative lighting.  The result would provide a more clean and contemporary finish to the bridge and would enhance its appearance to both users and passers-by travelling on Oldham way.  The bridge was also due for a deep clean and repainting which would restore the bridge as a feature across Oldham Way and once completed the bridge would have a much more open feel to users and it was hoped that more pedestrians and cycle traffic would use the bridge as an alternative way to accessing the Town Centre.  The work was expected to be completed in 10 weeks.

 

2.       Councillor Garry asked the following question:

 

“To ensure we are dealing with bona fide residents who submit questions to the District Partnership meetings, is it possible that we can insist on names and addresses to be supplied as per the new rules for full Council?”

 

Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded it would be for each District Executive to decide if they wished to adopt and ask for names and addresses for residents who submitted questions.

 

3.       Councillor Mushtaq asked the following question:

 

“The House of Commons Sub Committee on Education, Skill and the Economy reported in July 2016 that too many young people are leaving education without having had the chance to fully consider their future options or how their skills and experiences fit with opportunities in the jobs market. It also judged that a host of policy changes, initiatives and new bodies introduced in recent years have failed to make serious improvements and in some cases have even been counter-productive.  This is a sorry judgement on both the Coalition and Conservative Governments’ policy for Careers Advice which lets down many of our young people. Could the relevant Cabinet Member comment on how this affects young people in Oldham?”

 

Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that the statutory responsibility for providing careers education and guidance rested with schools for pupils from year 8 onwards.  There was a fortunate position in Oldham in that all schools commissioned some element of careers guidance from Positive Steps and in most cases schools also had an element of careers education embedded in the curriculum.  In addition to this, the local authority also commissioned careers guidance for vulnerable groups such as those at risk of disengagement after leaving school, those with special education needs and young people in the care system.  In the wider context of Greater Manchester, projects funded through City Deal for the improvement of quality of careers guidance had been accessed by a number of Oldham schools. 

 

4.       Councillor Blyth asked the following question:

 

“Given the number of takeaways and coffee shops in Oldham town centre and the various district shopping centres providing in-store seating for customers, I would be keen to hear the Cabinet Member’s view on the impact locally of the recent High Court judgement relating to Greggs?  For the benefit of members who may be unfamiliar with this judgement, Mr. Justice Kerr in the High Court recently sided with Hull City Council against bakery chain Greggs, and the Government, in requiring these outlets to remove such seating unless they also install customer lavatories and washing facilities. Mr Justice Kerr cited a previous case which Newcastle City Council also won, obliging Greggs to provide toilets in local branches of the chain.  Can the Cabinet Member please tell me how we are seeking to encourage takeaways with in-store seating to also provide toilets and washing facilities to make the dining experience more pleasant for customers who choose to eat-in?”

 

Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded that after discussions with officers, the Council did not enforce the local legislation contained within the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required food business owners to provide toilets and wash hand basis even where they were providing very limited seating facilities for customers.  Councillor Hussain thanked the member for raising this issue but he was of the opinion that any enforcement of this legislation would have a detrimental impact on small food businesses across the borough who were only providing a limited number of seats for customers.

 

5.       Councillor Dearden asked the following question:

 

“The Government is encouraging Local Authorities to form regional adoption agencies, could the relevant Cabinet Member please inform us of the current situation regarding Oldham, specifically around the area of partner organisations, financial implications and most importantly what this will mean for the children waiting for placement and prospective adopters.”

 

Councillor Harrison, Cabinet Member for Social Care and Safeguarding responded that Oldham was in partnership with five other local authorities namely Bolton, Blackburn with Darwen, Bury, Tameside and Rochdale.  There were two voluntary adoption agencies attached to this group.  Currently the project was funded through the Department of Education, however, self-funding would be needed from April 2017 and financial business cases were being scoped.  The implications for Oldham’s adopters and children would be that they would automatically see their access to potential matches increase 6-fold, i.e. adoptee details would go out and be circulated within these six adoption areas which increased the potential to be matched with a child in a much shortened timescale.  Equally our children would have the same access which should cut down the time they had to wait before being matched with a family.  This would mean less children having to be placed far away from their communities but still in a safe place, without the need to look nationwide.

 

6.       Councillor Wrigglesworth asked the following question:

 

“Under the Tory Government’s ‘Pay To Stay’ rules to be introduced in April 2017 all Social Housing Tenants who have a combined annual income of more than £31,000 are going to be required pay extra rent. Can the Cabinet Member responsible give us any indication of how many tenants in the Borough are likely to be affected and whether the cost of administrating the rules will out way any increase in funds collected?  I believe that the Council will responsible for administrating the rules and can claim back these costs from extra income which may be raised; will the government be responsible for reimbursing the costs if these are greater than any income raised?”

 

Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that ‘Pay to Stay’ was voluntary for housing associations but compulsory for stock holding local authorities.  Further regulations were due out in October to set out how it would operate.  The Council was talking to housing associations which had homes in the borough and some were considering whether to bring in Pay to Stay for their tenants.  They would have the flexibility to design their own Pay to Stay policies for higher income social tenants.  The Council owned around 2,100 homes.  Preparatory work showed that only around 3% of council tenants would be required to pay the higher rent which was less than the national average of 7%.  Any extra rent collected under the scheme would have to be given to the Government.  If the cost of administrating the scheme was more than the Council collected, the Council could ask for an exemption. 

 

7.       Councillor Murphy asked the following question:

 

“My question relates to the status of two of the blue plaques in our borough, and the dishonour currently shown to those who are commemorated upon them.  A motion was recently passed by Council to support investigating erecting a statue to Oldham suffragette Annie Kenney in the town centre. Mr. Mayor, members may not be aware of the blue plaque that already exists to Ms Kenney on the wall of Leesbrook Mill in Springhead, where she was employed as a cotton operative. This is in a very poor condition and is practically unreadable.  My colleagues, Cllrs Turner and Williamson, also wrote to the Cabinet Member recently about the plaque to another Oldham suffragette Lydia Becker. The plaque to Lydia Becker is located on a side external wall of Foxdenton Hall in Chadderton, which was Lydia’s family home.  This must often be over looked as it is not in a prominent position, is too far away from the public footpath to be easily seen, and is partially obscured by vegetation.  In our town centre, near the war memorial there is also a blue plaque honouring the Oldham men who were awarded this nation’s highest award for gallantry, The Victoria Cross. However the plaque is located so high up on the wall that it is unreadable unless you have access to military field glasses; what an irony!  Please can I therefore ask the Cabinet Member to arrange for the Annie Kenney plaque to be repaired and cleaned, or alternately replaced, the Lydia Becker plaque to be relocated to a more prominent position near the entrance to the hall and for the VC plaque to be relocated alongside the other panels honouring the courage of Oldhamers by the War Memorial itself?”

 

Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that listed building consent was required to move the war memorial plaque. There was working ongoing on the War Memorial plaque. When the application has been submitted and approved, the consent of the building owners would need to be obtained.  There was a similar requirement for the plaque located at Foxdenton Hall.  It was sensible to wait until plans for the hall were finalised before making a final decision.  With regard to the Annie Kenney plaque, there was no connection to Leesbrook Mill and officers were working with the historical society for the identification of a more appropriate location.

 

At this point in the meeting, the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.

 

RESOLVED that the questions and responses provided be noted.