Agenda item

Questions to Leader and Cabinet

(time limit 30 minutes)

Minutes:

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

 

Question 1:    Indices of Deprivation in Oldham Borough

 

“It is with deep regret, that a reliable study has shown how Oldham Council is still not dealing with deprivation locally.  And this is before the Covid-19 world we now all live in.  This is one league table we don’t want to rise the ranks of.  The English Indices of Deprivation 2019 provides very detailed information on how well an authority is doing based on: income, employment, education, health, crime, housing and someone’s living environment.  In terms of a real change, Oldham Borough as slid backwards.  We are by no means improving.  Before you all shout ‘Coalition Cuts’, let me put this into perspective for all members present.  Oldham Borough has risen from the 27th most deprived local authority in England to the 16th most deprived.  Almost ten places worse.  This is in only four years from 2015 to 2019.  Additionally, Oldham Borough is in the top five places that have worsened over that four-year period.  Other areas include Walsall, Blackburn with Darwen, Halton and Burnley.  The Council which has skipped ten points in local depravation and has been run by the Labour group, uninterrupted for the best part of ten years now.  I wondered if the Leader has a more articulate excuse than simply ‘Austerity’ as to why the Labour are failing residents of Oldham Borough?”

 

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that it was disingenuous to direct the position at Oldham Labour and that much had contributed to the table.  The Leader added that there was much which contributed to the Authority’s position in the league tables.  Oldham had traditional relied heavily on public sector employment which had been decimated under the Coalition Government and continued under the Conservatives.  The authority had been hit by disproportionate level of government cuts against which impeded the ability for any work to conducted that would mediate any forms of deprivation and poverty and this was going to become more challenging post the Covid-19 crisis.  It was suggested that more austerity would follow to repay the money paid to businesses and those supported those who had not been able to work during the period.  The Leader added that more austerity would not help a place like Oldham improve its position in the league tables.  There were committed local leaders, including those in the Council Chamber, who wanted to do the right thing by residents in the borough and to help the communities where members lived and represented and for resources to be directed to those most in need, help them rise out of deprivation, poverty and provided with the tools needed to provide for themselves in terms of good jobs, local infrastructure and public services.  The Council had set out an ambitious plan under Creating a Better Place which would invest not just in physical infrastructure but also invested in people in the creation of jobs and apprenticeships and assisted in having a good quality of life.  It was hoped that the opposition parties of the Council would support the investment.  The Leader added that locally made decisions would be made but only with the money needed in order for them to be implemented in a meaningful way.  The Leader welcomed the Leader of the Main Opposition’s support in call for the vires connects in the LGA directly from the Government.

 

 

Question 2:    Oldham Definition of Local Spending

 

“As you may be aware, it is an aim of Oldham Council to spend money and procure services with local business.  Business local to Oldham Borough.  Our procurement strategy is supposed to provide a plan for Oldham Borough to see value in all its activity.  It is also supposed to provide the maximum benefit possible to local people – which is even more important now in the Covid-19 world we live in.  The total local spend for the year 2019/20 was just over £126 million.  That is roughly 52% of the nearly £243 million we spend as a Council on procurement of services.  It is the Liberal Democrat group view that this Council should aim as a minimum for at least 60% of a local spend for next year.  Local spending and the millions of pounds mentioned before are defined as any business with an OL postcode.  This is where the problem resides.  The OL postcode does not restrict itself to Oldham Borough.  In fact, the OL postcode misses out most of Failsworth completely, the ward our Council Leader represents.  The OL postcode does however include parts of Tameside, most of Rochdale and includes places like Bacup.  Now I like Bacup but would never describe that as local and neither would most people. That is to measure procurement in the real Oldham Borough, and not have a system based on a post code devised by Royal Mail during the 1960’s.”

 

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that he would need to see the document to which was referred.  The Leader responded that local spend in Oldham was measured in terms of postal codes within the borough and included a breakdown which wards employees lived so that recruitment could be targeted to help spread the wealth that the Council had in terms of its salaries budget to all wards in the borough.  The ambition had been for a number of years, and in the manifesto, to target 60% of local spend in the same way, which was in common with the Liberal Democrat.  The percentage now was 52% which was a significant increase on where the authority was a short time ago.  The Leader welcomed support to get more local firms onto the Council’s procurement lists in order for them to apply for contacts and put money into the local economy.  The Leader added that the report produced by the Centre for Local Economic Studies which had highlighted Oldham as one of the best local authorities for local send and this publication would also answer many of the questions raised by the Leader of the Main Opposition.

 

Councillor Curley, on behalf of the Conservative Group asked a question related to supporting businesses in the borough and referred to Tommyfield Market.  The market had been eclipsed by Bury Market which had deferred charges and asked the Leader of the waiver or deferral of rents for market traders could be looked at to help traders bounce back.

 

Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that the markets, like many local businesses, had had to close in response to the pandemic.  The Council had worked closely and maintained contact with the traders and the throughout the lockdown period and ensure information had been shared and more recently worked with them to prepare for reopening.  The Council had written to the traders to explain the position on the collection of rents.  All traders had been encouraged to apply for the Small Business Grant Fund which provided a cash grant of up to £10,000.  The Council was aware that two traders had unfortunately left the market during the lockdown,but had received four enquiries from new traders who wanted to be part of the re-opening.  The Outdoor Markets had begun re-opening on a phased basis.

 

The Mayor reminded the meeting that the 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 Toor asked the following question:

 

           It is clear that the Covid-19 pandemic will have a significant adverse impact on Oldham’s communities and Council and other public services’ spending plans.  Can the Leader of the Council tell us what this means for Creating a Better Place?”

 

            Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that the ‘Creating a Better Place’ strategic framework had been approved by Cabinet in January 2020 before the Covid-19 pandemic arrived in the UK.  The framework focused on building more homes for Oldham’s residents, creating new jobs through town centre regeneration and ensured Oldham was a great place to visit with lots of family friendly and accessible places to go.  In light of the pandemic, the Council had to respond with the provision of significant funding support to ensure the safety and welfare of Oldham’s local communities  This had resulted in a serious funding impact on the Council’s five year financial plans, and therefore, it was wholly to review ‘Creating a Better Place’ to reconsider whether the programme was able to respond to support the post CV-19 recovery plans, whether the use of public capital funds was still justified and whether the original savings proposals were at risk, or could be accelerated / enhanced in any way.  The results of the review would be fed back to Cabinet for further consideration in alignment with the Council’s five-year financial plans.

 

2.         Councillor Shuttleworth asked the following question:

 

            “On 29 April Education Secretary Gavin Williamson reportedly told the Parliamentary Education Committee that the Department of Education would write to councils and academy trusts that week to give them ‘clear indications’ of why they are to receive.  This comment relates to the national distribution of some 2,000,000 laptops at a cost of £85m to support some disadvantaged year 10 pupils, care leavers and pupils with a social worker.  Mr. Williamson was reported as saying: ‘We expect the first laptops to be arriving at the end of May with the majority delivered in June’.  Would the relevant Cabinet Member confirm how many laptops have been received, if any, and when, and if the numbers provided meet the demand?”

 

            Councillor Mushtaq, Cabinet Member for Education, responded that Oldham had received 1,036 devices for children with social workers and care leavers.  These arrived on 11 June 2020.  Currently, it appeared that there were enough devices to meet the need under the criteria set by the Department for Education.

 

3.         Question received from Councillor Phythian:

 

            “Many residents have complained to me about the lack of a decent bus service in Royton North particularly the 402 and 412.  Since the operator has changed they have taken off routes vital to many elderly and vulnerable people which is causing distress and frustration.  Can the relevant cabinet member reassure residents we can get these bus routes reinstated?”

 

            Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Culture responded that the main issue with the services had been the significant increase in the cost of providing subsidised bus services following the decision by Manchester Community Transport (MCT) to close down their business when their Oldham contracts ended in April 2020.MCT was an operator with a track record of providing very competitive tender bids.  TfGM sought to maintain existing service levels, but other operators prices were significantly higher and, despite negotiating with them, TfGM could not get them to bring the costs down to an acceptable level.  This, coupled with price increases on other subsidised services in the area, meant TfGM had to review these services, the new 402 route being the outcome.  Given the circumstances which surrounded this network change, the services were unlikely to go back to how they were as this would require significant additional funding.  However, the subsidised bus network was always under review with a view to adjustments being made to improve the situation where possible.  If the elected member would like to share details of where the complaints were coming from, TfGM would be asked to look into them.

 

4.         Question received from Councillor C. Gloster:

“I am delighted that Wi-Fi has now been made available to attendees of funeral services at Hollinwood Crematorium.  At a time when very few mourners are permitted to attend such services in person this will now permit the transmission of services to those who would have wished to attend in different circumstances.  Wesley Media or a similar music and audio system like Oracle were to be installed, music selection would be far easier, and the system provides the ability to record the service.  Please could I ask the relevant Cabinet Member to ask officers to investigate the installation of Wesley Media, Oracle or similar, and to authorise the installation of such a system as soon as possible?  This would ensure that Oldham provides the very best facilities for the conduct of funeral services, and for the support of families and friends already grieving for their loved one.  I would now like to make a second request to improve the facilities at the Hollinwood Crematorium.   At present, music is being downloaded onto a private account owned by a crematorium operative and saved onto a computer owned by the Council.  There is no Council facility to record the service.  Please could I ask the relevant Cabinet Member to ask officers to investigate the installation of Wesley Media, Oracle or similar, and to authorise the installation of such a system as soon as possible?  This would ensure that Oldham provides the very best facilities for the conduct of funeral services, and for the support of families and friends already grieving for their loved one.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighourhoods and Culture responded that officers had researched the options around the use of both Wesley and Obitus music systems when the installation of webcasting was initially arranged from the Crematorium.  However, the companies make a charge for installation, together with ongoing subscriptions for music and webcasting.  For these reasons, together with the need for the swift installation, the decision had been made to support an inhouse solution.  The system did have a facilities to record and would be looked into.  Other options could be considered going forward, but whilst software already available in the Council enabled the service, the service was able to be provided at no additional cost to bereaved families and this was the Council’s current priority.  The webcast services had been very well received by families and funeral undertakers.

 

5.         Question received from Councillor Taylor:

 

            “Can the Cabinet Member for Finance tell us how many businesses have we been able to support through the various government funded schemes to support them during the Covid-19 pandemic and who can be helped through our local business support scheme?”

 

            Councillor Jabbar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Green responded that substantial help had been made available to businesses.  A total of 3,803 business grants of £10,000 and £25,000 had been paid by the Council in the administration of Government’s small business grant and retail, hospitality and leisure grant scheme, at a total cost of £43.235m.  Expanded retail business rate relieve had been applied to 996 businesses at a totally value of £24.681m and nursery relief had been applied to 34 nurseries at a value of £281k.  With regard to the Council’s discretionary grant scheme funded by Central Government at a maximum value of £2.501m, the Phase 1 applications closed on 12th June.  The first phase targeted businesses in multi-occupation premises, charity properties in receipt of charitable business rates relief, bed and breakfasts and market traders with fixed building costs.   Payments of £363k had been made with 29 companies awarded £10k, 13 companies awarded £5k and 4 companies awarded £2k.  Other applications for this first phase of grant were being considered and eligible claims would be paid as quickly as possible.  The first of the Phase 2 grants submissions was open until 22nd June to businesses in the following sectors – manufacturing, digital and creative, construction, logistics, events management with a rateable value of between £15,001 and £51,000 p.a.  Once all requests had been reviewed, grant awards would be made.

 

6.         Question received from Councillor Leach:

 

            “The lack of collaboration of central government with local public health teams in the development of a testing and tracing programme is just one example of our overly centralised system of governance.  Is this the more egregious recent example?  Could the Leader of the Council outline actions of himself and other leaders in Greater Manchester to take advantage of the devolved authority the central government has granted Greater Manchester, and the real constraints in exercising these powers more widely?”

 

            Councillor Fielding, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills responded that Greater Manchester and Oldham Council’s ambition was to support the development of a world class Test and Trace Service, designed to control the Covid-19 virus and enable people to live a safer and normal life.  The GM and Local Covid-19 Outbreak Control Plan would set out the GM and Local arrangements to control the transmission of the virus, manage the outbreaks and address certain acute associated impacts (consequence management).  The GM Plan would complement the existing GM Multi-Agency Outbreak Plan by ensure that key management arrangements were in place across GM and each Local Authority with the intention to provide a common GM framework to support locality planning.  Locally, the Oldham Outbreak Management Plant would be a stand along plan with would interface with GM and Public Health England (PHE) covering the national key themes:

1.    Care Homes and Schools

2.    High risk places, locations and communities

3.    Local testing capacity

4.    Contact tracing in complex settings

5.    Data Integration

6.    Vulnerable People

7.    Local Boards/Governance

            The local plan was currently being developed by the public health team to ensure robust roles and responsibilities were established with appropriate governance arrangements.  This would include the integration of national, GM and local policies into a whole-system approach to reduce Covid-19 transmission, reduce impact and manage outbreaks.  The Council was currently establishing an approach to impact/consequence management for complex settings such as mental health and emerging communities.

 

7.         Question received from Councillor Briggs:

 

            “Can the Cabinet Member for Education comment on how efficient was the government’s voucher scheme for supplying Free School Meals and how he thinks families will manage over the summer holidays as this is now being withdrawn?”

 

            Councillor Mushtaq, Cabinet Member for Education responded that the National Voucher Scheme did experience some problems when it was first introduced as the demand on the system was very heavy and there were some delays.  It was now understood that the scheme was working effectively and being used by schools where the provision of a meal was not possible due to factors such as parents self-isolating or not being able to collect a meal due to being in an ‘at risk group’.  National guidance was clear that the voucher scheme was for use where schools could not provide a meal for delivery or collection.  Earlier this week, the Department for Education said families of children eligible for free school meals would be provided with a voucher ‘to cover the full six-week summer holiday beginning next month, which schools will be able to order before the end of term’.  Vouchers would be provided via the existing system run by Edenred, which would run until ‘the end of the summer term’.  Schools would be asked to put in orders for support over the summer holiday before the start of the holidays and guidance for schools would follow shortly.  This was a u-turn from earlier in the week and related to the intervention of Marcus Rashford.

 

8.         Question received from Councillor Murphy:

 

            “For some time, Crompton Councillors and Council Officers have been working very hard to safeguard a much-needed car park in High Crompton.  This has been ongoing for several years, and we are keen to make sure that all parties efforts do not go to waste.  The area has been a hot spot for anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping and needs to be solved sooner rather than later.  Unfortunately, the Council officer who was dealing with this issue has left the authority and a new officer taken over their caseload.  With Covid-19 ever present, it appears that we have stalled, or slow progress is being made to complete the sale of the Council land.  Please can I ask the Cabinet Member to investigate this matter and find out what is causing the hold-up?”

 

            Councillor Brownridge, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Culture responded that work had not stopped or stalled – officers continued to work through a number of issues associated with the sale of the land, one of which included dealing with a restrictive covenant set by Manchester Diocese.  It was anticipated that these issues would be resolved by late July and then the provision of providing free car parking spaces for the local community.

 

9.         Question received from Councillor Ibrahim:

 

            “Oldham Council recognised early in the crisis that care homes faced severe challenges and organised pioneering support through the STCH Team.  The support we put in place met all the requirements of the most recent government guidance long before it was issued.  Could the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care outline the work of the team and the difference this made?”

 

            Councillor Chauhan, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care responded and thanked all the hard work staff, partners and front-line workers and action taken in response to the pandemic under difficult circumstances.  Oldham took the initiative prior to national guidance being received.  The action meant that a multiple of professionals had been brought together for the provision of designated support for all care homes.  Oldham was one of the first to introduce PPE, Covid testing for staff and residents, GP support, support advices, provision of pressure area care.  The work had not been done in isolation but had brought all partners together, including district nurses, social care workers, nutritionists, therapists, assessments and management.  The way that staff had worked together in an integrated way would be built upon.

 

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.