Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of 100 Year Anniversary of the Women’s Suffrage Movement

5.1.1

Nigel Slack asked why did the City miss the opportunity to bid for money to celebrate the 100^th anniversary of the women’s suffrage movement? We were one of 16 candidates invited to apply for a share of a £1.2m pot but chose not to apply. Was any consideration given to this opportunity or any discussion had with heritage groups in the City to assist in a possible bid?

5.1.2

In response Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, commented that she was proud of Sheffield’s place in the history of the women’s suffrage movement. She was also proud of the Women of Steel which had been commemorated in the City. A plaque had been installed at Marlborough Road to mark the fact that Emily Pankhurst was a resident there.

5.1.3

Councillor Lea added that the invitation from Government to apply for funding had not yet come to light. It was Councillor Lea’s understanding that there were plans for a plaque to be placed on one of the shops connected to women’s suffrage in the city. The Council continued to support the Women’s Hub Network.

5.1.4

Councillor Lea added that there were some small grants available and she would encourage people to apply for these. She was pleased that this year, Museums Sheffield would be celebrating the protest movement which encompassed all forms of protest.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Selective Licensing

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that, living just off London Road, he had completed the survey into the possibility of selective licensing for the area. Had the Council given any thought to a City wide licensing scheme for private landlords? It would seem to Mr Slack that this would have the benefit of ensuring all landlords were working to the same minimum standards and would not impinge on the businesses of decent landlords. It would also have the effect that costs of licenses could be reduced, making more landlords able to afford any needed improvements whilst not unfairly impacting on those who already met minimum standards?

5.2.2

Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, welcomed Mr Slack’s comment that he had filled in the survey. Government legislation did not allow for a City wide scheme and could only be used across a certain area. As a result, the Council had gathered evidence, over the course of two years, and the amount of poor housing this had uncovered meant the London Road area fitted the critera.

5.3

Public Question in respect of the Collapse of Carillion?

5.3.1

Nigel Slack asked what exposure does the City have in respect of Carillion, a major outsourcing company, collapsing? What impact will this have on the Tram/Train project? The Lower Don Valley Flood Defence Project? And the 250 jobs at the Carillion Call Centre in the City? In addition, is the Council aware of how many local companies may be impacted as part of the 30,000 small businesses owed money by the Company?

5.3.2

Councillor Olivia Blake, Cabinet Member for Finance, responded that Carillion had been involved in a number of construction projects in the past, such as the Lower Don Valley Flood Defence Project and Bus Rapid Transit, but their role had ended.

5.3.3

Where there were any redundancies, the Council would work with staff to support them as much as they could.

5.3.4

Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, added that the Tram/Train contract was with Network Rail and Carillion had a significant role in Network Rail work. Although the Department for Transport and Network Rail were in discussions regarding TUPE, the work remained in place.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Road Resurfacing

5.4.1

Nigel Slack commented that, in 2012, at a presentation to the then Community Assembly, Council officers and a representative of the Contractor indicated that the ‘milestone’ for road resurfacing was 100% in the first 5 years. In his answer to Mr Slack’s enquiry at the September Full Council meeting, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene indicated the ‘milestone’ was 70% of roads resurfaced. Whilst at the last Full Council meeting, two weeks ago, the Cabinet Member indicated the ‘milestone’ was now 60-70% resurfacing.

5.4.2

Mr Slack therefore asked when and why was this milestone changed? Was the change approved by Council Officers or Cabinet Members? Irrespective of whether they will be met, will the Council give full details of all the milestones for this initial ‘Core Investment’ period of the contract, detailing the original milestone, and any changes to milestones that were made during the course of the contract to date? Mr Slack also asked if supporting documentary evidence could be provided for the answers to these questions.

5.4.3

Councillor Olivia Blake stated that, as the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene was not present at the meeting, She would arrange for him to provide Mr Slack with a written response to his question.

5.5

Public Question in respect of PFI Contract

5.5.1

Nigel Slack stated that the collapse of Carillion inevitably led him to have concerns over the Streets Ahead PFI Contract where a company ‘AMEY Hallam Highways’ made a loss of £51m before taxation in the year to December 2016. It also expected that loss making position to continue in the future. In addition, the Company was in a net liability position, it did not have sufficient assets to pay its debts.

5.5.2

Mr Slack added that the ultimate parent owners of this Company were three hedge funds, Ferrovial in Spain, Aberdeen Asset Management and a company in the Cayman Islands. Was the Council concerned about how long these hedge funds would permit this position to continue?

5.5.3

Councillor Olivia Blake stated that Mr Slack would receive a written response to this question.

5.6

Public Question in respect of AMEY PLC Video

5.6.1

Nigel Slack referred to the sharing of a video by a Cabinet Member of an AMEY PLC video entitled ‘The Protestors Have No Respect for Democracy’. In Mr Slack’s opinion, this professionally produced and selective view of the trees issue, apparently made with the support of the Council, made unsubstantiated allegations about the conduct of protestors, neither of which incidents resulted in arrests and it appeared to use Sheffield City Council evidence footage. There was also a claim that masked people in headlamps were out on the streets causing concern. Was the Council sure that these weren’t AMEY sub-contractors? Could the Council confirm whether footage taken by the Council under the Investigatory Powers Act was used in this video? If so, who authorised that use?

5.6.2

Councillor Jack Scott responded that he did not agree with Mr Slack’s comments that the video was disturbing or propaganda. He believed it was an accurate representation of people’s views and it was important for people to recognise there were two sides to the debate. He did not know where the video footage came from but he had no doubt as to its legality as it was a public place and surveillance would have been marked. No Council footage was used and if Mr Slack had any concerns over the footage these should be reported to You Tube.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Security Staff

5.7.1

Nigel Slack commented that he believed the silence from this Council over the alleged violence and unlawful behaviour of security staff employed by its Streets Ahead contractor was shameful and for female Councillors to remain silent in the face of alleged violence to women was unbelievably so. Mr Slack had included photos to show what he believed to be casual abuse of which he spoke and asked that the Council spoke out. Did the Council have any comment?

5.7.2

Councillor Olivia Blake commented that any allegations of unlawful behaviour should be reported to the Police. If there was evidence of this, the Council would never remain silent. AMEY had received assurances from the Police that their actions were lawful.