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School Meals, this had been superseded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.
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