Councillor Sinclair said the request from the Committee for this report was timely and thanked Dave Growcott for his work on it. The balance of old and younger people in the City was atypical because of the size of the student population but the older population was both significant and growing. While the City Council had a role in making provision for older people it was by no means the only provider and, indeed, the burden of responsibility fell elsewhere.

In an extensive discussion the following points emerged.

The report provided a useful account of what was available via the City but was relatively silent on the question of how to engage older people in the first place.

Social prescribing by GPs and other health professionals was a valuable means of supporting older people. The City’s Community Centres had the potential to play a more significant role through, for example, the promotion of activities or use by some groups which might otherwise not engage. This was potentially of greatest significance to some BAME groups and women in particular.

In relation to provision for the BAME community, language and cultural barriers often discouraged engagement with older members of the community. Outreach activities might mitigate this to some extent.

The Council no longer had an officer with dedicated responsibility for older people which was seen as very regrettable. The designation of an officer as a ‘champion’ might help but there was a view that it was necessary to give dedicated responsibility to an officer in order to make a real difference. Thought might be given to a joint County/City Council post. 

Many older people lived alone in houses with spare rooms. There was enthusiasm for exploring the possibility of facilitating means by which those rooms could be used by younger people. As well as addressing, in some small measure, the housing shortage, it would provide companionship for older people. Councillor Sinclair said that this had been looked at before (and some funding made available to assist) but the project had not gained much traction at that time. It was recognised that this was a model which required careful risk assessments and capacity to deliver; the latter was lacking at the moment. It was agreed that it would be helpful to hear from a representative from Age UK at a future meeting about this matter.

It was noted with regret that society was generally less protective towards older people than it had been in the past (and as it remained in some communities and some other parts of the world). Social isolation was “corrosive.” There was universal agreement that there was a shared and collective community  responsibility for the welfare of older people. One of the key means of engaging with older people was through Councillors’ day to day constituency work.  The may be merit in a ‘reach out’ day or week for older  people,  something with would be enhanced with the support of Parish Councils, Community Centres and Food Banks.

Dave Growcott said that as result of the recent report to the  Committee on grants, officers had placed greater emphasis on engaging diverse communities. He represented the Council on the Oxfordshire Stronger Communities Alliance which was meeting the following week and at which he would reflect the Committee’s enthusiasm for some dedicated support for older people.

Many elderly people had little or no engagement with ICT and proper account needed to be (and was) taken of this in communicating with them. Community newspapers were recognised as being a particularly good means of engaging with older people however the production and distribution of them was very resource intensive.

Transport (or lack of it) was another factor which inhibited engagement of older people and was good reason to take every opportunity to protect local community transport services.

Given that the Oxfordshire’s Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) had responsibility for protecting the health interests of the wider community, no opportunity should be lost to secure funds from its dedicated budget to support these areas of activity.

There was agreement that more comprehensive data would be helpful.

As house building continues in the City, it was important that all steps were taken, through good design and planning to integrate communities.

While the report had come to the Committee to note, the issues it had thrown up were of sufficient significance to warrant recommendations for action. 

The Scrutiny Officer summed up the major issues arising from the discussion:

1.    A stronger view of how to identify and engage with older people who are isolated or at risk of isolation would be helpful;

2.    The possible use of population data for different parts of the city to identify any geographical concentrations of older people and gaps in provision should be explored;

3.    Consideration should be given to developing the role of local intelligence and local assets such as community centres, community newsletters, parish councils and food banks in identifying and supporting older people facing isolation;

4.    The absence of  a lead officer for  older people was regrettable and should  be remedied if possible;

5.    The need to secure a ‘fair share’ of CCG funding for the city to support the matters discussed;

6.    The need to explore and pursue joint working opportunities in this area with the County Council and CCG. The County Council and CCG should also be invited to a future meeting on this topic;

7.    Outreach work would help to mitigate language and cultural barriers and should be encouraged;

8.    A representative of Age UK to be invited to a future  meeting to speak, particularly about the possibility of older people sharing their houses with younger people (the ‘Homeshare Oxford’ scheme); 

9.    The desirability  of  justifying/promoting an older people’s day or week should be explored; and

10. Securing a better view of how we engage with older people through more data, including data on diverse groups would be helpful.

The Chair thanked everyone present for their contribution and said that the Committee would revisit the subject at the next meeting.