Agenda item

5.1

RESOLVED: On the motion of The Lord Mayor (Councillor Tony Downing) and seconded by The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith), that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.1, the order of business as published on the Council Summons be altered by taking item 8 on the agenda [Coronavirus (Covid-19) Update] as the next item of business.

5.2

Greg Fell, the Director of Public Health, provided an update on the latest position in relation to the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and James Henderson, Director of Policy, Performance and Communications, outlined the restrictions announced by the Government on the second national lockdown, which was due to start on 5 November.

5.3

Professor Koen Lamberts, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield, and Professor Sir Chris Husbands, Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, each reported on the work that both Universities had been undertaking during the pandemic.  Professor Lamberts was accompanied by Heidi Fraser-Krauss, Executive Director, Corporate Services, and Professor Husbands was accompanied by Joe Rennie, Group Director, Student and Academic Services.

5.4

This was followed by an opportunity for Members of the Council to ask questions and a summary of the questions to Greg Fell and James Henderson and responses was as follows:-

5.5

Questions were asked about the potential for mass testing of the population for Covid-19 and in response, Mr Fell informed Members that testing was effective if it linked to the right interventions that followed. There were however some scientific uncertainties with regard to testing a whole population. These included the accuracy of the testing and the scientific validity of the exercise - in relation to which there would be learning from the experience of the Liverpool pilot in whole population testing and the deployment of 2000 military personnel to support that programme. There were also significant logistical problems in repeatedly and frequently testing such a large number of people and there would need to be some certainty in relation to its benefits and the related behaviours and systems and processes, including linking the test to the process of NHS track, trace and isolate.

5.6

Mr Fell explained that there could be benefit in population screening of defined cohorts, such as asymptomatic testing in domiciliary or home care settings as was now being done in care homes. Similarly, there might be a case for asymptomatic testing in critical services both in the public and private sectors, albeit with some caveats.  There might also be a case for asymptomatic testing of contacts of confirmed cases of Covid-19, such as households and that was being examined at present in reference to learning from the experience of the Liverpool pilot. It was important to be clear about the logistics of testing a wider proportion of the population. Further information would be provided in writing.

5.7

As regards the question of whether schools and universities should close, SAGE (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) had been clear in advice to Government that the reopening of schools and universities would lead to more cases of infection. The balancing factors were that firstly, schools were operating in a largely safe environment and there was little in any documented evidence of in-school transmission. However, cases connected to schools were reflective of community transmission which was brought into school and then appropriately isolated. Second, the transmission from children to adults was quite rare. And thirdly, education was good for children and not having education affected life chances and was inequitable.

5.8

In relation to the effects of a second lockdown on the rates of Covid-19 infection, the less contact people had, together with other measures, the more rates would reduce. It was also recognised that there would be longer term consequences for some people, such as those who had developed ‘long-Covid’ and a related impact for health and social care.

5.9

Not enough people who should be isolating were doing so. Although there was financial support available for people to self-isolate, it was acknowledged that those with less income could find it difficult to self-isolate for two weeks. Community support for those who were required to self-isolate was also important. Observations were made as to the effectiveness of the NHS Covid-19 App and it was hoped that these would be addressed.

5.10

In relation to older people continuing to go to the workplace, whilst people who were clinically vulnerable should take extra care, there was not at this time specific government guidance on going into the workplace. The Council would undertake risk assessments in relation to employees as appropriate.

(Note: Due to time constraints, any remaining questions from Members to Greg Fell and James Henderson were to be asked and answered in writing.)

5.11

A summary of the questions to the Universities and responses was as follows:-

5.12

The Students’ Union had been engaged in relation to the delivery of teaching and assessment so that no students suffered detriment and teaching was delivered either on campus or online. International students made a major contribution to the culture and economy of the City. The Universities had reduced international travel by using alternative technologies and were also looking at future ways of working in relation to reducing environmental impact.

5.13

In connection with the transmission of the virus in the air, the Universities had followed guidance and had been working with the Council’s public health team and other experts. Risk mitigation measures adhered to government guidelines, including the wearing of masks in teaching areas and active ventilation, together with social distancing. There was not evidence through track and trace of aerosol transmission in teaching settings.

5.14

As regards concerns about the level of university fees and the possible reduction of fees and relatively little teaching time in some cases and having spoken with students, it was thought that students did understand the circumstances relating to the Coronavirus pandemic and they were philosophical and quite realistic. The reaction of students to placing learning materials online had been mixed with some students saying they were just as good or better and others saying that they were not so good. Lectures were recorded in short segments, for students to access.  Both universities had a cost base and it was just as labour intensive to develop online materials as to deliver teaching in person. It was thought, and the case had been made to Government, that changes could be made to the regime of repayment of student loans.

5.15

Universities had been working hard to provide high quality learning for students. If students felt that learning outcomes had not been met, those concerns could be raised with the university through the appropriate procedure and support was available through student advisers. The Universities were determined to deliver the learning outcomes that were expected.

5.16

Questions were asked about support to students who were required to self-isolate and Members were informed that an extensive support package was provided to those students, including welfare and emotional support and awareness of access to mental health and wellbeing services, eligibility to a hardship fund and an ability to borrow a laptop. Students staying in university accommodation received a daily check-in or they could register for a daily welfare call in relation to their specific needs and how they were feeling. Support was offered for access to medication and shopping deliveries. There were also a range of online services to make sure that students remained engaged with their course. There was peer support available for other students who were not self-isolating but might also need support or services. In summary, there was a lot of hard work being done in this regard to support students.

5.17

As regards blended learning and whether there was any planned increase in face to face teaching and learning, universities had needed to  respond and adapt rapidly and were looking at the year ahead, including timetabling, teaching and placements, and in respect of health and education courses and it was expected that the experience for students would be different later in the academic year.

5.18

In relation to teaching and learning for students on clinical, nursing and teaching courses, clinical teaching was being delivered face to face. There were challenges with regard to placements for health and education and this was the subject of current activity.

5.19

Support was available for students living in other accommodation in communities and those on placement elsewhere in the UK and shopping could be delivered to students who were self-isolating because of the Coronavirus. The Universities did engage with local communities and were keen to reassure people and make sure that people in communities were not unduly concerned. There was related proactive activity, including social media and the Universities were responding to enquiries. In general, students both understood and complied with guidance. Local MPs and Councillors were also kept informed of activity.

5.20

In response to questions concerning student accommodation and the effect of the pandemic upon providers, including providers of larger student complexes, and the future for student accommodation, it was explained that the two Universities were different in that, unlike the University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University was not a provider of accommodation and worked with private sector providers. The information available indicated that the market would not shrink in the near future.

5.21

For Sheffield Hallam University, a significant proportion of students lived in large residential complexes. Work was done in partnership with providers in relation to welfare and support and issues of conduct and discipline. Others lived locally or commuted into Sheffield or lived in homes provided by local landlords, including as part of a registered scheme and students were encouraged to move into homes with such partners.

5.22

The approach with regards accommodation providers was similar for the University of Sheffield. It was anticipated, looking at the demographics, that demand for higher education accommodation would increase and would be resilient and there was robust demand for a higher education experience in an institution and as a resident of a city.

5.23

In relation to risk assessment and what had been learned concerning transmission of Covid-19, it was thought that any movement of people brought a risk of transmission and that was proportional to the underlying transmission rate in the population. How the risk translated into actual transmission depended upon both the underlying rate of infection and mitigations that were put in place. Mitigations were put in place in collaboration with the Council’s Public Health team, to help ensure the effect of transmission on campus was as low as possible. There was limited control in relation to behavioural compliance but this had been very good on the whole. It was about balancing the benefits of providing students with education and the risks associated with any movement of people.

5.24

It was a matter of judgement as to the overall risks. It was considered that, if young people had been asked to put their lives on hold for a year, that would have resulted in a very difficult position, which created problems with the delivery of higher education in 2021 and it presented challenges with regards to mental health and youth unemployment. There were some important trade-offs and it was considered that the mitigations which had been put in place by the Universities had worked.

5.25

A question was asked about students returning home for the Christmas holiday and the effect of them returning to Sheffield on the rate of cases of Covid-19 and what action might be taken in that regard. In response, it was considered that this would depend on the consequences of a range of public health interventions. Whilst it was possible that there would be an increase in cases of Covid-19 when students returned, this also needed to be considered along with the prospects of those young people and long term needs of society for an educated workforce and it was really important that they did return. Government guidance was awaited in relation to students going home and returning after the Christmas holiday and what could be expected in terms of risk and mitigation depended upon the model that the Government chose to recommend.

5.26

In response to a question concerning the continuing job security, leading up to the Christmas period, of university employees including those in job roles in catering and cleaning, it was stated that for Sheffield Hallam University staff in such roles, there had not been spare capacity with people having been fully occupied and thought would be given to the future. However, it was not intended to make people redundant at this point.  For the University of Sheffield, the position was broadly the same and tribute was paid to those staff who had been crucial in keeping the University campus open and allowing research to take place and in keeping people safe and it was not intended to make people redundant at this point.

5.27

In relation to the effectiveness of mitigations and what might be done differently for the return of students in January as compared to the arrival of students in the autumn term, in respect of Sheffield Hallam University, the campuses and delivery of teaching had been secure and there had not been evidence of transmission. However, at the beginning of term, there had been some behaviours that had accelerated transmission and the University had worked incredibly hard with students, including in relation to communications and that was considered to have been effective. There was also examination of further development of test and trace which could help to manage the present circumstances. The University was also considering how it might adapt teaching and learning and that work was not yet complete and had been put on hold whilst an immediate response was put in place to the announcement of Tier 4 restrictions by the Government.

5.28

As regards international students, for the University of Sheffield, early on, there was concern as to an anticipated reduction in international students being able or choosing not to travel to Sheffield. A significant number of students had chosen to wait until the new year and to defer their arrival and were undertaking the first semester online. There were challenges, including in relation to visas and international travel. Arrangements had been put into place recently for travel from China. The numbers of students registering to come to the University was holding up reasonably well. The Government had offered a loan and grant package, which was expected in the new year, to help cover the shortfall in international student numbers and fees which helped the University to maintain research.

5.29

Support from the City Council was valuable in terms of working with teams in the Council and so there was understanding of local needs and concerns and in order that the Universities were also informed by the Council.

5.30

For Sheffield Hallam University, it had been anticipated that there would be a reduction in numbers of international students and in fact this reduction had not been as large as expected earlier in the year. The numbers of domestic students had held up well. The Universities were working together to put a proposal to Government concerning how there might be more effective working in relation to social and economic recovery and renewal. There was a wish for the two Universities to collaborate together and with the City Council to consider the place of the Universities, their contribution to the City and in improving the quality of life for young people and the population of Sheffield.

5.31

Questions were asked about how a learning and academic deficit might be addressed and as to how the lack of a wider learning experience of students in higher education could be addressed such as by the use of summer schools. In response, it was acknowledged that this was a concern and the current circumstances presented a different experience for students. The University was looking at learning outcomes and giving consideration as to what might need to be picked up in future years and for first and second year students. Students were demonstrating considerable resilience and were learning through responding to the present circumstances relating to the pandemic. Students had often been ahead in relation to their grasp and use of new technologies and in the last six months, universities had found they had had to catch up.

5.32

The Council noted the information reported and thanked all of the presenters for attending the meeting and providing their updates and for answering Members’ questions.