Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in relation to Question asked at Full Council on 2 November 2016

5.1.1

Nigel Slack commented that he was still awaiting a response to a question he had asked at the meeting of Full Council, held on 2 November 2016, in respect of ‘Outsourced Contracts’ and asked when this would be forthcoming? Mr Slack provided a copy of the question he had asked for reference.

5.1.2

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, apologised to Mr Slack for this and accepted that the delay was unsatisfactory. Councillor Curran would continue to chase to ensure Mr Slack received a response.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Question asked at Cabinet regarding ‘Covert Communications Data Capture’

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that he was still awaiting a response to his question asked at the Cabinet meeting held on 19 October 2016 in respect of South Yorkshire Police utilising ‘Covert Communications Data Capture’ and asked if there had there been any progress on this matter?

5.2.2

As one of the Council’s representatives on the Police and Crime Panel, Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, responded that the question had been asked at the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel and the Panels minutes were available on the website. Councillor Drayton understood Mr Slack knew where to access the minutes. She also stated that he was able to attend the Police and Crime Panel as it was a public meeting and he could ask a question directly to the panel there.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Trade Union Law

5.3.1

Nigel Slack referred to a question he had asked at the last meeting of Full Council, held on 2 November 2016, and apologised if the question was not as clear as it might have been. He had took it from the comments of the Leader of the Council that she had recognised that it was connected to the incident on Marden Road that morning.

5.3.2

Mr Slack therefore clarified that he was referring to ‘Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 – Section 241 – Intimidation or Annoyance by Violence or Otherwise’. Mr Slack stated that this was the law that had been used to arrest 5 people involved in the tree campaign. This law was being used to prevent protest, which was potentially in breach of: ‘Human Rights Act Article 11 – Right to Protest and Freedom of Information’. This provided that ‘The right applies to protest marches and demonstrations, press conferences, public and private meetings, counter-demonstrations, ‘sit-ins’, motionless protests etc. The right only applies to peaceful gatherings and did not protect intentionally violent protest.’

5.3.3

Despite claims of intimidation beyond the protests, Mr Slack had seen nothing to suggest ‘intentional violence’ at any of the protests. Indeed, Councillor Lodge, Cabinet Member for the Environment, commented on that in the radio interview held on 29 November 2016. With this in mind, Mr Slack asked did the Council agree with this Trade Union Law being used by the Police to prevent protest by, and the arrest of, members of the public? In addition, Mr Slack asked the Council, hopefully with unanimous Cabinet approval, to request the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police to drop the charges against the 5 protesters.

5.3.4

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that, at the time Mr Slack’s question was submitted to the Full Council meeting on 2 November 2016, she was not aware of the specific incident referred to on Marden Road or the particular clause of the Trade Union Bill referred to by Mr Slack.

5.3.5

As a result of the issues surrounding the recent operation on Rustlings Road, Councillor Dore had met with the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding the participation in that operation and the Council had expressed a sincere apology regarding two particular aspects of that operation – the early start and the fact that the Council had not publicised its response to the report of the Independent Tree Panel in a timely manner. The apology had not been given for 7 days following the operation, as the Council needed to establish the facts of what had occurred.

5.3.6

As regards using the Act referred to by Mr Slack, Councillor Dore stated that, from her discussions with the Police and Crime Commissioner, whenever South Yorkshire Police carried out an operation, they received their own legal advice. In respect of the operation on Rustlings Road, the duty was to ensure there was no public disorder as there was evidence to suggest that could have been a particular issue for that operation.

5.3.7

The South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner had said that the Act was only used where someone is stopping someone else carrying out their lawful work and there was a duty of care to everyone. Any action stopping someone doing their work did not need to be of a violent manner, it simply related to actions leading to the inability of a workforce to carry out their work.

5.3.8

From information given to Councillor Dore in respect of the work on Rustlings Road, in order to carry out the work safely, the workforce had put cordons around the area and asked protestors to stay outside these as they may be at risk if they didn’t. The Pokice had negotiated with the protestors and explained the consequences if they did not meet this request, however some protestors did enter the cordon and this meant a threat to the safety of themselves and others and it was explained to them that if they didn’t leave this area they would be arrested.

5.3.9

Councillor Dore added on behalf of the Cabinet that the Council could not intervene with police operations and the carrying out of their duties. She acknowledged that the protestors could use the Human Rights Act in their defence and she hoped that when citizens were faced with any criminal case they would be treated with the utmost respect and the Police would act in accordance with the law.