Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Gender Pay Gap

5.1.1

Christine Rose commented that the Women’s Equality Party were pleased to note that the Council had a relatively small gender pay gap for its own employees. However, the Council spent millions of public money outsourcing and procuring services via private companies. Could the Council therefore give the gender pay statistics for the five largest Council contracts of 2017/18? Could these be broken down both by the financial cost of the contract and by the number of employees delivering the contract, stating the name of the company/organisation and the service they provided?

5.1.2

Christine Rose further asked could the Council also tell us whether an assessment of the gender pay gap formed part of the procurement process for evaluating bids and submissions, including renewal and extensions of contracts? If this was not currently part of the evaluation and procurement process, how was the Council going to ensure that it was in the future?

5.1.3

In response, Councillor Olivia Blake, Cabinet Member for Finance, commented that this was a really important issue and she was happy that the gender pay gap at the Council was small. However, the Council did have a number of contracts but had recently insourced some of these. 3 of the 5 main contractors for the Council had representatives who sat on the Council’s internal Equality Board where questions were asked in relation to equality.

5.1.4

Councillor Blake added that information in respect of this could be found on the gender pay gap website but she would write to Ms. Rose with the breakdown. There were significant differences in the pay gap between the 5 main contractors. Equality in respect of pay was not able to be included as part of the procurement process due to the need to follow the national procurement regulations of 2015 and the regulations would need to change for this to be considered. However, the Council did use an ethical procurement toolkit with its suppliers.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Asset of Community Value Application

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that there had been a great deal of comment on social media both from the Friends of Birley Spa and others about their application for an Asset of Community Value Assessment. The implication was that this had failed at the first hurdle. In Mr Slack’s opinion this appeared to be another disposal where the view put forward by Cabinet was at odds with disposal practice by officers. What was the latest on Birley Spa and the Asset of Community Value application? Was there a clear and understood protocol for the disposal of heritage assets that officers should adhere to? If so, could that protocol be published for the benefit of the public and particularly for local community groups that may have had an interest?

5.2.2

Councillor Jim Steinke, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded that he had not signed off the decision in respect of this as yet. He had had the relevant legal briefing and met with Councillors and Officers. However, he couldn’t prejudice the decision at this stage, but when the decision was made it would be made public. There was a heritage category being developed and this would be published.

5.2.3

Councillor Olivia Blake added that the Council had a disposals framework which applied to all assets, which had been agreed in 2013 by her predecessor. This was publically available and could be made available for Mr Slack. An Informal Planning Note for applications was usually produced which took into account conservation issues.

5.3.

Public Question in respect of Streets Ahead Contract

5.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that the Streets Ahead Contract had been in the news again for what appeared, to Mr Slack, to be manipulative changes of work schedules to ensure that Amey avoided penalties. Mr Slack believed that they may even have gained financially by hitting changed targets.

5.3.2

Mr Slack commented that two quotes from the article which he had provided Cabinet with a link to were particularly relevant: “Initially, it was believed by some Councillors, Amey would resurface 100 per cent of the roads in the first five years. They then said they would finish 70 per cent in that time period. Nick Hetherington, network asset manager at Amey, had since confirmed they had only done 65 per cent to date.” Nigel Slack commented that this descending target was also confirmed to him in answers to public questions by the previous Cabinet Member for Environment.

5.3.3

The article further stated that “Mr Hetherington denied the team being behind schedule but admitted to changing their programme to meet targets.” Mr Slack therefore asked what information could the Council share about this practice and whether Council contract management facilitated such changes? Could the Council confirm whether Amey received penalties or rewards for their work in their ‘core investment period’?

5.3.4

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded that the truth was less sensational than the quotes referred to by Mr Slack suggested. There had never been a prescribed target for the percentage number of roads completed in a fixed time. There was an average condition score awarded in terms of resurfacing and it was estimated that 65-70% of roads would be improved within that core investment period.

5.3.5

Councillor Dagnall added that Amey carried out a condition survey each year to assess whether roads had deteriorated or improved. This was necessary as it ensured Amey focused on roads that had deteriorated. Microsurfacing brought roads up to standard before a full resurfacing took place. The Council also took samples from roads to ensure the condition was acceptable.

5.3.6

Councillor Dagnall added that Amey had met all of their targets within the core investment period and had received a contract uplift. This would have worked the other way round if Amey had not met their targets. Streets Ahead was a 25 year programme which will have a long term impact and would get roads up to a standard and be maintained at a standard not previously seen in the City. Councillor Dagnall was satisfied with the way the programme operated to deliver a sustainable operative network for the Council and concluded by commenting that he could not be held responsible for misunderstandings of the way the contract operated.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

5.4.1

Nigel Slack commented that he had spoken with the relevant Cabinet Member about concerns over consultations falling short of their target audiences recently and he had identified that there had been issues with both Council blogs and the consultation hub website, probably due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) issues. Mr Slack had been told that these would be addressed.

5.4.2

Mr Slack then stated that he would also like to focus on the issue of some consultations seeming to lack sufficient information for the Cabinet to take the best decision. For example, the consultation with respect to the Community Infrastructure Levy, item 9 on the agenda for today’s meeting. Mr Slack understood and applauded the proposal to make this a redistributive approach, even if he might disagree about how this was applied. However, if he were making a decision on this today he would want some additional information.

5.4.3

Mr Slack therefore asked as more ‘Neighbourhood Plans’ were developed what will be the impact of this on the redistribution aspect of the scheme? What information was there about the money collected through CIL on different areas or Local Area Partnership (LAP) areas and therefore what 10% of that CIL neighbourhood portion (being the minimum local retention) actually amounts to? Finally, with recent contention over the existence or otherwise of actual Equality Impact Assessments, could a copy of EIA report 286 be available at the meeting?

5.4.4

Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, responded that there was a risk with Neighbourhood Plans that some neighbourhoods could approve plans that would allow them to retain a higher amount of money. There was the further risk of more affluent areas being able to develop neighbourhood plans and poorer areas not able to which would widen inequality. Information in respect of Ward distribution had not been made available as the policy decision had not yet been made. Within the next two-three weeks more information would come forward and be made available. However, things changed on a daily basis. The Equality Impact Assessment was circulated to Cabinet and made available to Mr Slack.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Community Infrastructure Levy

5.5.1

Mike Hodson, representing Carter Knowle & Millhouses Community Group, asked was the Cabinet Member aware that the high rate of response to the consultation that is cited in the CIL report, in answer to criticisms of the poor publicity etc., is largely due to the last minute publicity given to the consultation by local community groups? The top 6 Wards accounted for virtually 50% of the responses despite the fact that:-

(a) information about the consultation only reached many of these groups a few days before it was scheduled to close, owing to failures in the system of notifications by Citizen Space and Local Area Partnership Blogs;

(b) the publicity was largely confined to social media; and

(c) responses to the consultation were only possible online, thus disenfranchising a substantial minority of citizens who lacked either the means or the confidence to make use of electronic communications?

5.5.2

Mr Hodson further asked if the Cabinet Member was satisfied that the consultation was entirely in accord with the Council’s own guidelines for such consultations in that:-

(a) the proposals were not clearly at a formative stage – as they included detailed principles and evolved proposals for all three of its aims;

(b) sufficient reasons (and background information) were not included – e.g. there were no figures or examples of how alternative methods of distribution might impact on different areas of the City;

(c) adequate time was clearly not given - as the consultation period was only four weeks, as against the usual, and recommended six weeks; as it started in the middle of August when many people were likely to be away; and for those who had only heard about it days before the response period ended, it was merely a few days; and

(d) the product of the consultation did not appear to have been conscientiously taken into account – in that on the key proposition of adopting a distribution model across the whole City using the Index of Multiple Deprivation, only 45% supported it, with 53% feeling unable to do so?

Mr Hodson asked, as a follow up, would the Cabinet Member not agree that were the Council to make more use of local community groups plus other more traditional methods as additional channels of communication, their aim to involve and empower local communities – as expressed in aim number 3 of the consultation – might be better achieved?

5.5.3

Councillor Jack Scott stated that he was encouraged by the response rate to the consultation and this compared well to similar consultations. He accepted the point about GDPR in that, as a result of the new regulations, the Council had to delete a database of email addresses that it had built up and was now having to rebuild that. This consultation was the first to take place since that had been done. The only mitigation possible was to extend the deadline to respond to the consultation which the Council had done.

5.5.4

Councillor Scott added that it was not uncommon to receive last minute responses and differences in the responses between areas. However, there was a correlation of support for the proposals. Councillor Scott was confident that the consultation was adequate in this instance and took into account the more deprived areas in the City. The proposals outlined in the consultation had not been decided and it was agreed that a further discussion would be held at the end of the consultation. As a result of the consultation the Council had gained good qualitative and quantitative information.

5.5.5

Councillor Scott recognised that CIL was a complicated process and the questions posed in the consultation contained background information to allow people to make a judgement. It would not be fair to say that 30% neither agreeing nor disagreeing means the Council should not proceed with the proposals, as these people were not disagreeing with the proposals. Councillor Scott thanked Mr Hodson for the work he did with the Carter Knowle and Millhouses Community Group and agreed that such organisations were a vital part of how the Council engaged with local people.

5.5.6

Councillor Scott acknowledged that CIL was a contentious issue but was confident in the consultation that had taken place. He welcomed the input from the Carter Knowle and Millhouses Community Group and would welcome similar input from other community groups. He respected people who had a different view, but believed implementing the proposals was important if the Council wanted to tackle significant inequality in the City.

5.5.7

Councillor Jim Steinke thanked Mr Hodson and other community groups who encouraged last minute responses to the consultation. Many of the responses were supportive of the Council’s proposals, especially in areas where people may not appear to benefit from them.

5.5.8

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, commented that she was not surprised to see support from people in areas who may not appear to benefit from the proposals as she believed that Sheffield people understand the importance of fairness and redistribution was a part of that. However, she recognised that in some localities further work needed to be done to address some issues with developments and this could be done through the planning process. The Council was always looking to improve engagement with communities and individuals who didn’t engage with the public service, and the democratic process. If anyone had any suggestions as to how to increase dialogue with these people she would be happy to hear them.