Report of the Consultant in Public Health (Ageing Well Lead)

Following the report to the Committee in December 2020 which outlined a set of proposals across five key areas that were designed to help address the barriers many of Manchester’s mid to later life residents report that they face, this report details the progress to date and plans for the next 18 months.

The Committee received a report of the Consultant in Public Health (Ageing Well Lead), following on from the report to the Committee in December 2020 which had outlined a set of proposals across five key areas that were designed to help address the barriers many of Manchester’s mid to later life residents reported that they faced.  This report detailed the progress to date and plans for the next 18 months.

The main points and themes within the report included:

• Ageism;
• Care homes;
• Neighbourhoods;
• Employment; and
• Our Manchester.

The Lead Member for Age Friendly Manchester (AFM) outlined how older people had been particularly affected by the pandemic.  He also highlighted the positive work that was being done, as detailed in the report, and the need to continue to address these issues.

Some of the key points that arose from the Committee’s discussions were:

• The condition of pavements and the disproportionate impact of this on older people;
• Digital exclusion among older people;
• The importance of good bus services;
• The specific needs of older LGBT people;
• The role of “Friends of” groups in the Age Friendly parks work;
• Ensuring that the skills development work matched the skills that employers were looking for; and
• The importance of tackling social isolation.

The Age Friendly Programme Lead agreed with the Member’s comment about pavements.  He highlighted the age friendly navigation plans which were being piloted in four neighbourhoods and which aimed to identify what routes people took around the neighbourhoods and what enabled and what hindered older people’s access.  He advised that the condition of pavements had been highlighted as an issue in one or two of these plans and that this information had been fed back to the Neighbourhoods Directorate.  He welcomed the Member’s suggestion of an equalities approach to pavement maintenance and improvement decisions.  He suggested that walking and talking with older residents going around their neighbourhood could highlight different issues than officers on their own might identify.  He stated that parking on pavements was also an issue and that more work was needed to address this, focusing more on increasing people’s awareness of the problems this caused than on enforcement.  The Chair expressed the Committee’s strong support for work to improve the condition of pavements and ensure that they were free from obstructions, such as cars and advertising boards, and for this to be treated as an equalities issue.

The Age Friendly Programme Lead advised that the AFM Board recommended that access to services should not be digital by default, and that non-digital options should be available; however, he informed Members that a lot of work had taken place during lockdown about improving digital access, not just access to devices but also the skills and the confidence to use them and that Libraries had an important role in this.

The Age Friendly Programme Lead informed the Committee about work to influence the Greater Manchester plans for public transport to ensure the inclusion of an age friendly perspective and detailed work taking place around route planning which would assist with trying to get the best deal for older people.   The Executive Member for Health and Care supported the Member’s comments about the importance of public transport and emphasised the importance of ensuring that the perspective of older people was represented in the future plans.

In response to the question about LGBT older people, the Age Friendly Programme Lead informed Members about the Pride in Ageing initiative, a representative from which was on the AFM Board, and about the LGBT Extra Care Scheme in Whalley Range.  He confirmed that “Friends of” groups were central to work in parks, including being involved in audits, looking at how parks were used.

The Age Friendly Programme Lead advised that a lot of the work outlined in the report, particularly the work within neighbourhoods, was about providing older people with opportunities to get out and re-connect with people.  He informed Members about older people-led organisations which had changed their ways of working since the start of the pandemic to find ways to engage with people who had been remaining in their own home since the start of the pandemic.  The Lead Member for AFM advised that social isolation had been an issue for many older people before the pandemic and had been exacerbated by the pandemic and that addressing this was a thread that ran through all the work outlined the report.  He also advised that the voluntary groups referred to played an important role in reaching socially isolated older people but that they did not reach all people, with some parts of the city having better coverage than others, and that some communities of interest were less likely to be in touch with these groups, although they could have their own community groups.  He also highlighted the role of Councillors in referring people who were socially isolated to relevant groups.

The Age Friendly Programme Lead informed the Committee about work relating to employment and skills, advising that the Work and Skills Team engaged with employers which gave them an understanding of the skills that were required. 

Decision

To note the Committee’s strong support for work to improve the condition of pavements and ensure that they are free from obstructions and for this to be treated as an equalities issue.