Agenda item

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

 

Question 1:

 

“I am sure that every member in this Chamber will have been as horrified as I as to see the image of the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower and the impact that it had on both the building, the tower’s residents and its neighbours.

The latest estimate is that there will be at least eighty lives lost; many residents are still missing; and the survivors of the blaze remain traumatised; coping with injuries and missing loved ones; without any possessions and with no certainty about their future housing circumstances.

It would be remiss of me at this point not to condemn the woeful response of this Government to the needs of the fire’s victims and the shameful absence of Prime Minister; Theresa May in the aftermath of this enormous tragedy.  Strong and stable – I think not.

I have a stark message for the Prime Minister – it is your job to lead the nation in times like this and on this occasion you failed miserably.

It would also be true to say, in my opinion, that the local council for the area; Kensington and Chelsea; was an embarrassment to all involved in local government.

Both the Officer and Political Leadership of that council has failed their residents big time.

I am pleased to say this is in stark contrast to Oldham Council when we have had to face emergencies such as Maple Mill and the tragic gas blast in Shaw.

On a more positive note, it was however a tremendous relief to learn, following enquiries made by my Liberal Democrat colleague; Councillor Chris Gloster; that none of the tower blocks in this Borough have been clad with any inflammable material as Grenfell appears to have been.

At a time like this, I am sure the Leader will want to reassure members of this Chamber; and more importantly the residents of our Borough’s tower blocks; and their friends and relatives; that all of the components of any type of external cladding system used in this Borough are safe.

Also that the evacuation procedures for tower blocks in Oldham have been thoroughly reviewed in recent days to ensure that they are up-to-date and follow best practice. 

I would like to ask the Leader for this reassurance tonight and also for a brief summary of what advice to tenants and occupiers of such tower block is in the event of a fire?

Also, what is happening to other public buildings in the Borough that could possibly be clad with similar materials as used in Grenfell such as leisure facilities, education buildings and health service accommodation to name just three?”

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that by saying she agreed with the assessment of the Government’s and local authority’s response to Grenfell.  The Leader explained that it has been established that there were no social housing blocks with cladding similar to that used at Grenfell in Oldham.  One privately owned block, not currently occupied, was affected.  Work on ongoing with the Fire Service in terms of advice and support for tower blocks.  The Council was working with social landlords in terms of a review.  The Mayor of Greater Manchester had established a task force on which the Council was represented.  As soon as information was available, it would be shared.

 

Question 2:

 

“For my second question to the Leader, I want to return to an issue that I have raised many times in this Chamber before – namely the education of our Borough’s children.

I was disappointed, and, in all honesty, sad, to read recently that once more Oldham was bottom of the class when it came to the number of our children who miss out on attending a secondary school of their choice.

And I am not just talking here about pupils (and their parents) not getting their first choice of school – I am talking here about them not getting their second or third choices either.

In this Borough almost 9 percent – to be exact 8.9 per cent – did not secure a place to start at any of their preferred schools in September, which is nearly 1 in 0 pupils or approximately 300 of them.

So now we have another mark of failure against our education system as according to the Department for Education, Oldham was the sixth worst performer in the country and the worst in the North West for school choices.

Compare this to the national figure – 3.6 percent – we are three times higher.  Three times as many denied the secondary place that they seek.

The Borough is also second worst in the region for the percentage of pupils being offered a place at their first preference school and only 1.5 percent of pupils in Rochdale did not get a place at one of their three preferred schools.

In Oldham our primary sector is not much better; 6 percent pupils or 181 children; failed to get a place at their first, second or third choice schools.

It is scandalous – we can do better, much better and we must do better, for the sake of our children and their educational future.

Because if we do not offer children a place at a secondary school they want to go to we are hardly providing them with an inspiring start to help spur them on to do their level best in their final years of compulsory schooling.

I look forward to the Council meeting when I can ask the Leader a positive question about Education in our borough – but I am sorry to say that with the current level of performance that I cannot see this as being at any point soon.

Let’s hope that the new Saddleworth School, the new Royton and Crompton School and the expanded Crompton House school and Oasis Academy will be able to meet the educational expectations of all of our young people; but these are long-term and not immediate gains, and some of them are still far from certain.

So my second question to the Leader tonight is; what is being done now to ensure that every child in the Borough receives a secondary school place of their choice in the future?”

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that she agreed that it was desirable for a child to get first place of choice.  This was not possible at the moment with a situation beyond the Council’s control.  Two secondary schools had closed which was appropriate due to the services they had provided.  The closures had created issues.  Plans were being brought forward with a free school provider for a secondary school and for the school to be built as soon as possible.  Plans were in place for Saddleworth School and a major rebuild for Royton and Crompton.  The figures quoted were from 41 councils surveyed, not all had responded.  This did not mean that it was right.  Work was being done to ensure the situation improved.

 

Question from the Leader of the Conservative Party:

 

Councillor Hudson raised the issue of Saddleworth School.  He commented that he had received representations from his constituents about being kept up to date on the school and if any funding would be lost at any stage for the new school.  He requested an update.

 

Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council responded that the Council was still awaiting information from the EFA.  Due to the fragmentation of education, Councils had little control over educational establishments, however still had an obligation legacy.  The Council was still awaiting information, when it was received it would be shared.

 

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 Briggs asked the following question:

 

          “Among many of the cuts to welfare benefits starting from April 2017, was a very late reduction in the scope of Personal Independence Payment which reverses a recent court decision which ruled people with severe mental health problems were entitled to claim PIP. Is the relevant Cabinet Member able to tell us how this will affect Oldham residents in need of help and support to cope with their mental health challenges?”

         

          Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources responded that the government had introduced new regulations in March in response to Upper Tribunal decisions, which had ruled in favour of people with mental health problems being awarded points in particular activities when applying for Personal Independence Payment (PIP).  The Upper Tribunal decision widened the scope for people with mental health conditions which maximised their points in the mobility activity.

          In response, the Government had changed the eligibility related to the Mobility Criteria around ‘Planning and Following journeys’.  The new wording for this had made it more difficult for people with mental health problems to be awarded the same points as before since points were now only awarded in some cases ‘for reasons other than psychological distress.

          The new regulations did not prevent people with mental health conditions from claiming PIP which could still be awarded.  However, in this particular activity, people with mental health conditions would find it more difficult to be awarded points due to the change in regulations.

          Oldham residents would be impacted by the change, as customers who were currently in receipt of PIP and had scored under the previous criteria, may no longer score the same points when their claims were reviewed.  New claimants with a mental health condition such as depression and anxiety which affected their ability to go outdoors, would now find it harder to be awarded points.

          The Welfare Rights Services helped residents to challenge PIP decisions and supported new claims to PIP as well as the maximisation of household income across the range of Welfare Benefits.  The Government was going against the most vulnerable in the community.

 

2.       Councillor Shuttleworth asked the following question:

 

          “There have in recent months been devastating attacks carried out here in the north west as well as London, with, as we all know, dire consequences. There has also been the tragic loss of life at Grenfell Tower in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

          Decisions taken when such atrocities occur by those who lead the emergency services that we reply upon are paramount, and our trust in such decisions must be made, whatever our own feelings are.

          Would the Leader agree with me that all members of the public owe a tremendous amount of gratitude to those brave men and women who are the first respond to such incidents, and who, on many occasions, risk their own life in order to save others, and that she should write to the Heads of each emergency service offering sincere thanks from all within this Chamber and the Oldham public. Such thanks should also be extended to the medical staff at the Royal Oldham Hospital.”

 

          Councillor Stretton, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise referred to her earlier comments.  All members owed a debt of gratitude to the emergency services.  The courage and dedication was evident on a daily basis and would be recognised with thanks.

 

3.       Councillor McLaren asked the following question:

 

          “At a recent school governors meeting, concerns were raised regarding the DBS status of Schools Meals staff who are employed by the LA but work in schools. Could the relevant Cabinet member, assure us that all Schools Meals staff working in schools have received relevant training in Safeguarding, and that these staff have had or are in the process of having DBS checks carried out?”

 

          Councillor Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years responded that all staff had relevant checks that were required by statute at the time of their appointment.  The Council was in the process of arranging safeguarding training for staff and this would be completed for cleaning staff by September 2017 and catering staff by May 2018.  In addition, all schools were required to advise staff of any arrangements and processes within individual schools.

 

4.       Councillor McCann asked the following question:

 

            “Oldham Planning Committee & its chairman do a good job in applying planning law and setting conditions on some developments that are unpopular but cannot be stopped on planning grounds. Someone is always upset.

          However when conditions or actual detail of a condition are not followed by a developer then I feel there is a lack of urgency and/or positive action in enforcing such matters.

          There are many cases, and I have sympathy for departments short of resources, but in the case of Well-I-Hole Farm PA335111/14 not only has the developer failed to conform with conditions set by the council, but also by the Inspector who allowed the applicant’s appeal.

          So landscaping has not taken place around an area granted permission for all year occupation by caravans by the Inspector, whilst areas with time limits on occupation have in fact had caravans on them.

          Numerous representations have been made for action to be taken against this flouting of planning and so I ask that serious consideration be given to legal action. 

          Would the Cabinet Member be able to offer any hope, although I am aware resources are stretched, for a developer to ignore conditions since 2014 is 'taking the mick' on a grand scale?”

 

          Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives, shared the principle in the reduction of resources in Planning especially in respect of enforcement of conditions.  Enforcement of any details planning application were not mandatory but discretionary and a judgement to be made whether or not to try in law or negotiate a solution.  The background to the Well-i-Hole application was complicated.  Councillor Brownridge proposed to send a full written response.  The situation related to an orginal planning application and subsequent appeal against a non-determination of the application to vary the conditions.  It was the conditions that the Inspector had imposed at the appeal and part of those related to the landscaping conditions.  An application had been made to discharge those conditions, however the view had been taken that the species were not appropriate.  There were ongoing negotiations to get the scheme made more appropriate on which it would sit.  It was not felt appropriate to enforce the other elements as the other issue would be resolved soon.  With regard to the caravan site, the site was being monitored as to who was living there and a register had to be kept as to who was on site.

 

5.       Councillor Williams asked the following question:

 

          “In the light of the appalling loss of life in the Grenfell Tower fire and subsequent action on cladding, could the relevant Cabinet Member tell us what action is being taken to ensure that buildings in the borough – especially high-rise blocks of flats -  are safe?”

 

          Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Cooperatives responded that there were nine high rise residential blocks in Oldham, two were the Council’s responsibility, six which were managed by First Choice Homes Oldham and Great Places Housing and the ninth was in private ownership.  No public blocks were clad with material that the Government was not happy with.  There were concerns with the private block, however, this was not currently occupied and issues were being addressed.  It was important to note that First Choice Homes Oldham and Great Places Housing had done sterling work in contacting all the tenants to reassure them what is going on as well as regular meetings as well as letters.  Councillor Brownridge had attended a meeting with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and there had been a number of issues, especially fire safety was dealt with especially when there was only one escape staircase.  The advice of the Fire Service was that more people could be killed in the crush to get down the stairs.  It was important to have compartmentalisation in place and maintained.  There were no concerns on publicly owned blocks in Oldham.  There was confidence in the advice given was the correct advice.  A task force had been established by the Mayor of Greater Manchester to look at the tower blocks across Greater Manchester and to come up with recommendations which Oldham would take into account.

 

6.       Councillor G. Alexander asked the following question:

 

          “Many employees working in the care industry are paid minimum wage and work in excess of 40 hours a week to make ends meet. Working extra hours at the weekends and even nights with no extra reward. Take into account the mobile carers who do not get re-numeration for using their own vehicle on the job and a small fuel allowance.  Their hourly rate can be less than the legal limit paid to employees. 

          Organised workplaces are better workplaces, employees have a voice and are valued, they have a say in how the company treats them and through collective bargaining can improve terms and conditions in their work contracts. An organised workplace is a safer workplace, where everyone is treated the same and staff retention and sickness improves. 

          Can the member responsible for the portfolio in Health and Social Care help to bring trade union recognition to the commissioned private health care sector employers and give those unrepresented but very important people who care for our most vulnerable people in our society by writing to The Private Health Care Sector to allow trade unions to speak to employees in the care homes.”

 

          Councillor Harrison, Cabinet Member for Social Care and Safeguarding, responded that the Council was aware of Unison’s Ethical Care Charters for care at home and care homes, and in the main, both charters accord with the Council's quality standards approach to residential and care at home services.  Whilst the Council could not insist on the role a union should play in a private business, the quality standards included the principle of encouraging and supporting union membership.

          Oldham commissions care services with a number of contractual conditions which included that care staff were paid a minimum of £8 per hour and required that at least 80% of the workforce were not on “zero hours” contracts.  As part of negotiations and discussions with providers and interview with staff, there were considered to be mutual benefits for some from having zero hours contracts.  Therefore, contractual obligations were that at 80% of staff should not be on zero hours contracts as insistence of a level above that may not be in the interests of the entire workforce.

          In addition, the hourly rate the Council paid for care at home had been calculated to include travel costs.  As part of the Council’s ongoing quality monitoring of care services, compliance with these conditions were checked.

 

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.