Democracy

Agenda item

Middlesbrough Council's Response to COVID-19

The Chief Executive and Director of Public Health will be in attendance to provide the Board with an update in respect of the Council's response to COVID-19.

Minutes:

The Chief Executive provided a verbal update to the Board regarding the Council’s response to COVID-19.  The following points were made:

 

●   In response to queries raised at the last OSB meeting, the following information was provided:

 

Ø  In relation to whether an extension to the Selective Landlord Licensing scheme could be sought / considered with a view to recouping time lost as a result of COVID-related delays to inspections, the Director of Adult Social Care and Health Integration had advised that although housing standard inspections had been suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, plans were in place to undertake the originally intended volume of inspections within the current lifetime of the scheme.  Consequently, as neither tenants nor landlords would be disadvantaged by the temporary suspension during the pandemic, it was felt that an extension to the scheme was not required.

 

Ø  Regarding a request for an update in respect of the Council’s approach to Christmas Free School Meals, this had been superseded by local allocation of a national Winter Grants scheme which the Government had announced (further details would be provided during the meeting); and

 

Ø  With regards to the impact of COVID-19 on staff absences / sickness / isolation relating to COVID-19 since 23/03/2020, and the further associated impact on Council finances, etc., further details would be provided during the meeting.

 

  • In terms of the latest COVID-19 position, Middlesbrough’s numbers had drastically reduced over the last 10-15 days; around 170 per 100,000 of the population, having been over 500 circa. 15 days previously.  Across all of the indicators that the Government was suggesting would be used to determine which tiers Councils were placed in, a similar drop had been seen within those.  Rates across population had reduced significantly in the over 60s and in the number of people in hospital, which mirrored the current trend across the whole Tees Valley.  It was hoped that this trend would continue, and although 25-30 cases were still occurring daily, this was a significant reduction from the 100-plus cases seen previously.

 

  • When looking at the statistics in relation to indices of multiple deprivation, there was a higher prevalence of COVID-19 in deprived wards, although some of the work undertaken had shown that in some areas, for example Central Ward, this was lower than would perhaps have been anticipated.  It was felt clear that this was due to testing activity, and therefore the testing strategy would focus on targeting poorer communities where take-up was known to be low.

 

  • Regarding the COVID-19 winter grant approach, it was explained that a circa. £700,000 allocation had been received from the Government to cover the period of the school holidays from January-March.  This had superseded local plans that were being developed around a free school meals approach over Christmas and school holidays.  Reference was made to an individual Executive Member decision being taken on 2 December 2020 in respect of this matter.  It was explained that there was discretion for local Councils as to how the grant could be utilised - the only rule being that 80% of it should go towards families with children.  Grants would be allocated to families with dependent children who were in receipt of Council Tax reduction, or that had children in need or most at risk, or were residents with children who were not in receipt of the Council Tax reduction scheme and fell outside of crisis support criteria.  Payments had been extended purely beyond the free school meals cohort because there was an awareness that large numbers of residents had encountered financial difficulties, residents that did not fall into the free school meals category or were not in receipt of Universal Credit, for example.  It was indicated that there were approximately 2200 households in the town that had never been in arrears previously with their Council Tax, but now were due to income reduction (e.g. through self-employment and / or furlough).  Attempts were being made to target this as successfully as possible.  Awarded monies would be utilised to meet the costs of food and winter fuel bills.  Some of the allocation would be retained and work undertaken in partnership with Middlesbrough Environment City to create sustainability by avoiding a cycle of providing additional support every school holiday, but instead work with families to support them in cooking healthy, inexpensive meals at home, to become more ingredient aware, etc.  An update in respect of this work would be provided at a future meeting.

 

  • Regarding the impact of COVID-19 on staff absence / sickness, it was indicated that circa. 160 staff were currently absent due to sickness, which represented about 5% of the workforce.  Numbers had been relatively static throughout the COVID-19 period and had not yet impacted the Council’s ability to deliver services to the public.  Overall, this equated to 7.7% of working days that had been lost to COVID-19.  At the beginning of the first lockdown in March 2020, COVID-19 accounted for circa. 25% of all sickness; as the first-wave eased, staff sickness also eased.  This figure currently stood at just under 20% of all staff.  In terms of the number of staff currently shielding, either due to being part of the clinically extremely vulnerable cohort or being asked to self-isolate, there were 350 at the start of the first lockdown, which reduced down to 150 by the end of that period.  Currently, circa. 150 staff were either self-isolating or shielding, the vast majority of which were able to continue working from home.  There was circa. 1400 employees logged onto the Council’s system at any one point in time, therefore being in isolation did not necessarily affect someone’s ability to undertake their work.

 

  • In terms of COVID-19 sickness as a proportion of all sickness, it was reiterated that the Council had not yet reached a point whereby the ability to deliver services had been impacted.  There had been some issues experienced around refuse collection, but because there was an agile workforce in place, some staff had been moved from Area Care into that area to ensure that refuse could still be collected.  Pre and post-COVID-19 productivity levels, overall, had remained the same throughout the period.

 

Following the update, Members were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of both the Chief Executive and the Director of Public Health. The following issues were raised:

 

●    A Member queried whether the declining number of cases could be attributed to anything in particular.  In response, it was explained that this was exceptionally difficult; the Council had done all it could to promote COVID-19 safe practices to reduce cases, but this was being undertaken at a time when cases were also increasing.  It was felt that a lot of it was a consequence of nature.

 

·        A Member made reference to the grant payments and queried how this would be distributed, i.e. would funding need to be applied for.  In response, it was explained that the cohort had been identified.  There would be an application process for those perhaps missed, but there was an awareness that, in respect of the 2200 households mentioned previously who had never needed to claim before, there may be some resistance to do so.  In terms of the process for those individuals identified, a code would be sent to a mobile phone to enable the recipient to visit a shop and obtain a cash amount.  It was felt that this afforded residents increased dignity and offered greater choice as to what the money was spent on – i.e. food, heating or water.

·        A Member commented on the reduction in the rate of infection and acknowledged the work of both the Council and the public in helping to achieve this, with everyone working together.

 

·        A Member queried whether Middlesbrough’s figures were currently lower than before entering the second lockdown.  In response, it was indicated that this was the case, with the current figures being at their lowest since the end of September 2020.  Clarification was sought regarding the tier system, as Middlesbrough was in tier 2 at that time, but was now entering tier 3.  In response, it was explained that Middlesbrough was in tier 2, but destined for tier 3.  Discussion had been taking place at that time with the Government in terms of moving the Tees Valley into tier 3, but this was superseded by the national lockdown.  The outcome of a review was expected on or before 16 December 2020, which would determine which tier Middlesbrough would be in beyond then.  It was explained that, given the rates across the town, officials were arguing the case for tier 2, particularly in relation to the number of people in hospital, in critical care, prevalence amongst the over 60s etc.  However, the issue was that the benchmark figure was unknown; rates were a third of what they were previously, but four or five months ago, the rate of 20 per 100,000 was considered high (Middlesbrough was currently at 170 per 100,000).  It was felt likely that it would depend how other areas were performing and where Middlesbrough sat in the ‘league table’, but work and the argument for tier 2 would continue.

·        A Member made reference to the vaccination programme and the map that had been released earlier on in the day in respect of where people would need to attend in order to be vaccinated.  It appeared that the closest facility serving Middlesbrough’s residents would be located in Newcastle; a query was raised as to whether Middlesbrough Council and its Public Health teams would be lobbying in order to attain more localised provision.  In response, it was commented that many people in Middlesbrough and other areas would be unable to travel that journey, either for health or financial reasons.  For example, over one third of people in the Tees Valley did not own their own vehicle, and therefore the Council would be lobbying.  Officials’ assessment was that this was the first wave rollout of the vaccination and as the programme developed (with rollout to Community vaccination, etc.), local vaccination provision would be a necessity or it would not work, and therefore this would be discussed as the vaccination programme developed.  Members would be updated on the progress made around this in due course.  A Member commented that vaccination provision for the North East would be made from a Hub in Newcastle. 

·        A Member made reference to the BAME Community and individuals being at a higher risk from COVID-19, and queried whether there would be a priority for vaccination.  In response, it was explained that this was currently unknown.  At present, work was taking place with Central Government to develop a testing strategy for Middlesbrough, which was more advanced than the vaccinations strategy (that level of detail had not yet been reached).  It was envisaged that the local vaccination programme would follow a similar route to the testing programme, where concentration would be on those delivering critical tasks such as care and those wishing to visit relatives, and then proceed onto more vulnerable groups (whether that be due to ethnicity, disability or where they lived).  A programme would be developed locally; it was hoped that further information would be attained in the near future.

·        A Member made reference to Middlesbrough Environment City and commended the work being undertaken.  It was hoped that a previous scheme revolving around the provision of slow cookers and cookbooks in deprived communities would be repeated.

The Chair thanked the Chief Executive for his attendance and contribution to the meeting.

 

NOTED