Agenda item

4

Petitions

4.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Support the Labour Party in Recognising Palestine as a Sovereign State, as part of the United Nations, and to Pass a Motion to this Effect

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition containing 1692 signatures, requesting the Council to support the Labour Party in recognising Palestine as a sovereign state, as part of the United Nations, and to pass a motion to this effect.

Representations of behalf of the petitioners were made by Julie Pearn who stated that the UK Parliament had made a decision in 2014 to recognise Palestine as an independent sovereign state and the petition called upon the Council to immediately implement that decision. She said that 138 nations recognised the state of Palestine and then commented on actions of Israel allegedly in contravention of international law.

It was believed that such public recognition would be a powerful statement which others might emulate. She made reference to the tradition of humanitarianism and internationalism in Sheffield and the role that the Council had played in relation to issues, such as in the ending of apartheid in South Africa recognition of Somaliland. The Council was requested to immediately recognise an independent Palestinian state; to make that recognition public both nationally and internationally and to undertake appropriate communications; to carry out an urgent review (in line with policies relating to ethical procurement and investment) of any business dealings with companies involved in enabling the mistreatment of Palestinians; and to undertake an information campaign to explain its decision and to educate the public in relation to this issue.

4.2

Public Questions Concerning Palestine

A number of questions were asked by members of the public on the subject of Palestine, as follows:

Peter Jones referred to the Council’s ethical investment principles and asked if it was agreed that the Council would seek to ensure that South Yorkshire Pensions should divest from companies which profited from military and other action against civilian populations such as in Yemen and in Palestine.

KaltunElmi asked firstly whether the Council would condemn the demolition of Palestinian schools. Secondly, she asked whether the Council would agree that the Israeli government should be condemned for the arrest and imprisonment of children in Palestine.

John Morgan asked whether the Council believed that the Palestinian dancers performing at Tramlines should be acknowledged as enhancing an already strong brand which represented Sheffield’s inclusive outward looking reputation.

Sarah Johnson asked whether the Council would support Labour Party policy in recognising a sovereign state of Palestine and encourage other core cities to follow Sheffield’s lead.

Angela Martin asked whether the Council agreed that supporting a two state solution, without recognising Palestine as a sovereign state was tantamount to allowing Israel to annex land that was internationally and legally recognised as being Palestinian.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Olivia Blake (Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance). Public questions relating to this topic were also referred to Councillor Blake.

Councillor Blake thanked the petitioners and stated that she believed that it was right to recognise the rights of Palestinian people to their own sovereign state and which was recognised by 137 nations and the United Nations General Assembly had also sought to do so in 2012 but this was blocked through the Security Council. She referred to Labour Party policy in relation to this issue. It was also acknowledged that such recognition would be a step toward a genuine two state solution and a process towards peace for Palestine and Israel. She also referred to the need to support self-determination for people in their own sovereign states.

Councillor Blake said that the Council’s Administration would present a notice of motion at the first opportunity in relation to the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state and that all councillors should have an opportunity to speak and to vote on the matter and have input to the debate. Whilst Sheffield was just one city, it could make a symbolic gesture in this regard and seek to put pressure on the Government to also recognise Palestine. Councillor Blake said that whilst she had responded on behalf of the Leader of the Council, she would also request that the Leader respond to some of the questions in writing. 

In regard to South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, Councillor Blake stated that she would be pleased to write to the Pensions Authority and to outline concerns and questions put by Mr Jones. She also made reference to notices of motion previously considered by the Council with regards the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia in connection with the conflict in Yemen.

She said that she condemned the demolition of schools and that education was a right and not a privilege and it should be protected. It was also horrifying that children were being kept from their families and released without charge.

As regards Palestinian dancers performing at Tramlines, Councillor Blake stated that this would be recognised as enhancing Sheffield’s strong brand relating to Sheffield’s inclusive and outward looking reputation.

Councillor Blake said that she believed the Council should take a stand with regard to the issues raised and that Palestine should be recognised as a sovereign state. She said that a written response would be made to the question regarding the potential for Israel to annex land in Palestine. 

4.3

Public Questions

4.3.1

Public Question Concerning  School Streets

E Jones Marriott asked a question concerning whether the Council would consider plans for school streets or living streets in Sheffield.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that the Council was looking at launching a number of pilot schemes for school streets, play streets and living streets and he would encourage people to come forward so they might be included in any future plan. This was an initiative that was to be done in conjunction with clean air zones and the Council was determined to take and action in areas around schools as one of its priorities.

4.3.2

Public Question Concerning Injunction

Justin Buxton asked whether the decision to pursue the renewal and extension of the injunction was signed off by elected members or had it been made by officers. He asked whether the Leader of the Council was still happy with the decision and the financial and reputational cost to the Council. He also made reference to an investigation by the Forestry Commission into the street tree felling programme in Sheffield.

4.3.3

Public Question Concerning Trade Union Law

Justin Buxton made reference to a response to a question by the Leader of the Council in November 2016 concerning the use of Trade Union Law to arrest protesters. He referred to emails from the Council requesting the police to arrest protesters using Trade Union Law and he asked whether the Leader of the Council was in charge of the Council.

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change, responded that the matters raised had been considered exhaustively and answers had been provided to the issues on several occasions and he referred the questioner to the record of questions and answers in the minutes of previous meetings of Council to clarify matters. He said that he was pleased about the progress which had been made in bringing the community together to find a more sustainable way forward in relation to the managing street trees.

4.3.4

Public Questions Concerning Works to Street Trees

Dave Dillner made reference to a comment made by the Cabinet Member concerning the Council upholding to rule of law. He commented that making false accusations to the Police was a criminal offence and he asked, firstly whether the Cabinet Member would join with him in condemning those responsible for falsely accusing citizens of pulling on ropes of workmen in trees; studding trees with broken glass, nails and chains and oiling tree trunks. He said that no evidence had been produced to substantiate the accusations. Secondly, he asked if the Council would be prepared to work with him to find the source of the accusations.

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change, stated that allegations of a criminal offence should be reported to the police.

4.3.5

Public Questions Concerning Injunction

Russell Johnson made reference to the movement towards an urban tree management policy for the City and stated that in that context, an extension of the High Court Injunction was unnecessary and inflammatory. He asked for confirmation that the Council intended to express faith in the new arrangements and to save public money by stating that no such extension would be sought. He also referred to a response previously made on this subject concerning a decision relating to any injunction and as to whether it was a legal or political decision.

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change, stated that the first issue relating to a legal decision had been discussed before and he made reference to previous responses given. The second issue was substantially the same as a question recently asked at a meeting of Cabinet. He said that the Council was seeking to create the conditions which would make an injunction unnecessary and to build a consensus in relation to an approach with regards street trees and he was glad that progress was being made in that regard.

4.3.6

Public Questions Concerning Carbon Reduction and Climate Change

Richard Souter stated that transport accounted for an increasing proportion of the City’s emissions. He asked what measures the Council was putting in place to reduce transport emissions to meet a net zero target by 2030.

Celia Mather stated that following the declaration of a ‘climate emergency’, it had been suggested by the Sheffield Climate Alliance that there were immediate steps the Council could take, including renewable electricity, training, policy reports to include environmental implications and ensuring that the Pensions Authority would divest from fossil fuels. She asked which of those steps had begun to be taken.

Chris Broome commented that government policy to prioritise economic growth made adequate action to improve the environment and reduce emissions virtually impossible. He asked whether councillors understood that if they had courage to condemn the system within which they were supposed to cooperate, then many campaigners would welcome and support such a stance.

Logan Robin referred to the report by the Tyndall Centre and commented that it did not include particular actions or breakdown by sector in relation to emission reductions. He asked for timescales relating to decisions regarding reductions in emissions and as to the process by which decisions would be made.

Jenny Patient stated that, to reach net-zero carbon, the insulation of homes would be essential. Ten years ago, the Council had reported that 52 percent of homes in Sheffield were ‘hard to treat’ in that these homes could not be adequately insulated through loft and cavity wall insulation. She asked what the strategy would be for the Council to insulate all homes and what the cost and timescale would be to bring all homes up to at least a SAP B rating.

Zoe Roberts asked how the Council planned to develop measures and policy to ensure that Sheffield remained within the carbon budget as outlined in the Tyndall Report and whether there was, or it was planned to establish, a cross party working group on the matter.

Responses were given to the questions relating to carbon reduction and climate change as part of item 5 on the agenda: Responding to the Climate Emergency – Developing a Carbon Budget for Sheffield.

4.4

Petition Requiring Debate

Petition Seeking a Referendum on Whether the Council Should be Run in a Different Way by One or More Committees made up of Elected Councillors

The Council received an electronic petition containing 7754 signatures, seeking a referendum on whether the Council should be run in a different way by one or more Committees made up of elected Councillors.

The Council‘s Petitions Scheme required any petition containing over 5,000 signatures to be the subject of debate at the Council meeting. The wording of the qualifying petition was as follows:-

“We, the undersigned, being local government electors for the area of Sheffield City Council, to whom this petition is addressed, seek a referendum on whether the Council should be run in a different way by one or more committees made up of elected councillors”. 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Ruth Hubbard. She stated that the petition sought a change in the model of governance to a modern committee system rather than the strong leader model which was currently operated by the Council.

She said that the aspiration for local governance which reflected the way people wished to live and work together and care for each other. This was not a peripheral issue and it was something that did matter to people in the city.

Ruth Hubbard said that the people’s petition was launched on 24 August 2018 and once a valid petition representing five percent of the electorate was submitted, the Council would have to hold a referendum on a change of governance to a committee system and it would also have to remain neutral. A first batch of signatures had been submitted to the Council. At this time, a total of over nineteen thousand signatures had been received and it was intended that the final number of signatures would be greater than the required verification number. This would be the biggest petition on such a matter in the country.

There had been many conversations with a wide range of people throughout the city in relation to this issue and Ruth Hubbard made reference to some of the people to whom campaigners had spoken.   

She stated that a change in governance would require examination of a number of issues, including what made a good decision, collaboration, ensuring better representation and scrutiny. It was not intended to recreate the previous committee based model of local authority governance. This matter concerned having governance arrangements which worked for Sheffield and all of its large and diverse communities. There was no ‘off-the shelf’ solution but, where local authorities had changed to a committee system, the design of those systems had reflected particular priorities. For example, a desire to create better cross party working and better working with communities, stakeholders, business and other partners. It was recognised that there was no perfect system. Local Councils which had changed had done so for better local democracy and had reported improvement. Cheshire East and Scarborough had recently changed governance arrangements.

Ruth Hubbard commented that she had been pleased to have had an open discussion recently with the Deputy Leader of the Council. However, she said that she was disappointed with the Council’s response during the year and this matter had been consistently raised at Council. She commented on the potential costs of a referendum on the matter. She said that people were signing the petition because they wanted change and to end the strong leader model of governance.  She called upon the Council to take the opportunity presented by the petition to grasp the issue and to make a decision to move to a committee system. If a decision was not made at this point, and when a completed petition was submitted, there would not be the opportunity for the Council to make a decision to change and a statutory referendum would be required. She said that this was a change which people wanted and called upon the Council to change to a modern committee system. The petition also presented an opportunity to claim Sheffield as a city of democracy and to make that meaningful.     

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1(b), the Cabinet Member for                                  Finance, Resources and Governance responded to the petition, following which the Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance spoke on the matter.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance, thanked the petitioners for bringing the issue to Council. She stated that becoming a councillor was a chance to serve the community and it was something of which she was proud and could not be taken for granted.

There was a wish for every councillor to have a role whereby they could make most difference to people and the present system did present opportunities to do so. Councillors were champions in their communities and were appointed to committees which regulated functions including licensing and planning; and councillors represented the Council on outside bodies. The administration was formed by the largest political party and the opposition held them to account and cross party scrutiny committees considered decisions that were made. The Cabinet and Scrutiny system was introduced by the government to improve accountability, not to stifle it.

Councillor Blake made reference to the 2012 referendum concerning a change to a mayoral model of governance and in which sixty five percent of people backed the current system. However, it was clear from the petition that the Council should take the opportunity to consider how to improve public engagement and the Council was committed to doing everything it could in that regard. This included consideration of the best model for the future. There was a need to look at the full range of issues relating to engagement as it would not be right to put in place a new system without knowing how it might address those issues as raised by the petition.

She said that she would also welcome an opportunity to work with the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to look at how this might be done and the matter would also be debated at a political group level. She looked forward to working with campaigners to consider issues and to make sure there was the best system for democracy in which every councillor was able to play a part, representing the community and to ensure that the public could engage and have input into the work of the Council.

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance then spoke on the matter, following which Members of the City Council debated the matters raised by the petition, as summarised below:-

Comment was made about the style of governance in the Council and concern expressed as to people becoming distanced from it. Remarks were also made about the changes made to Council meetings and as to the level of scrutiny in the Council. It was felt that, whilst local councillors could get involved, such opportunities had reduced over time. 

It was thought that the petition and debate concerning governance was about opening up democracy and councillors being part of the decision making process. Whilst a change in governance model might not provide a solution to all the issues, it did provide an opportunity including for more cross party working.

The debate was welcomed and was considered to show the strength of democracy in the City and in contrast to other countries, the UK was a democratic country which enabled people to organise and develop a case and to debate. The scale of challenges for the City also meant that there needed to be experiments in deliberative and participative democracy, such as a Citizens Assembly. This was about the democratic processes in place in addition to the Council’s formal model of governance.

People in the City were saying that that they would wish for the Council to work with them and the Council had tried to do that with Community Assemblies and something such as that might be developed further in order to engage with people. Councillors worked hard in their communities and were aware of issues and problems and that some people need more help and support than others, including the extent to which they might feel able to engage in debate. The Council needed to work with people, find out what they wanted and how power might be devolved

The committee model of governance was fair and representative. It would bring greater transparency and better decision making and cross party collaboration and was more inclusive and democratic. Backbench councillors would have a role on committees which were established proportionate to the political composition of the Council and a committee model would also lend itself to a multi-party council.

Comment was made that the previous committee system was not a good way of working and the new model of executive arrangements was intended to give transparency so people knew who made decisions and could hold them to account. Those in a scrutiny role would be active in their role and, when it was well done, scrutiny properly engaged councillors to undertake different ways of working. There were examples of good practice in relation to scrutiny, such as pre-decision scrutiny and the use of task and finish working groups. It should be a critical friend to ensuring the voice of the public was heard and carried out by independent minded councillors to drive improvement.

The proposals for a committee model of governance would not necessarily mean returning to the model previously used by local authorities but a different model which allowed the public to engage. Some councils had chosen to adopt a committee structure and some had established a model of governance which included overview and scrutiny.

Many people had signed the petition and the petition organisers had spoken with many people. The Council could accept that people wanted a change in the system and put in place a system of governance which was open and transparent. A committee system was considered to allow more debate and accountability than a cabinet model.

Other local authorities with a committee model of governance gave delegated powers to chairs of committees to make decisions. Scrutiny could hold people to account and there were examples of it doing so. Sometimes decisions had to be made quickly including in conjunction with partner organisations such as the police and some delegated authority would be needed to do that. It was also thought that there was currently significant opportunity for public involvement at meetings of Council and at other meetings and it was also important to listen to public concerns.

The Cabinet model was considered to be the least-worst option when changes were made in 2000, when compared to alternative options of an elected mayor or city manager. At that time, Cabinet, Scrutiny and devolution were key component.  It was commented that the Cabinet component had become stronger and a better decentralised system and scrutiny system was needed. A modern committee system was needed which was the right one for this time and one which reached out to people.

Comment was made that regardless of the committee or cabinet model, the party with the most number of seats would take decisions. Whilst a committee system would be different to a cabinet model, it would not necessarily more or less democratic, although more members would be involved.

Comment was made that the role of scrutiny chairs had previously been given to opposition councillors, which had been an important element. A new system was required and Community Assemblies had involved local councillors in decision making for their respective communities.  

Scrutiny Committees had been conducted in a democratic way and members were regarded as equals and had their say with the work of those committees being a collective effort. Task and finish groups in scrutiny was also used to enable work to be done.

Within the cabinet and scrutiny model, there was opportunity for decisions to be called in. Scrutiny also enabled councillors to work differently and reduced the party political dimension which had been a feature of the previous committee system.

The lead petitioner, Ruth Hubbard, exercised a right of reply and stated that a valid petition would be submitted and that would trigger a referendum on this matter. Over eighty percent of people to whom campaigners had spoken with wanted to sign the petition. She commented that there had been many good point of discussion during the debate by Council and said that she was disappointed that the debate had not occurred during the year.

Ruth Hubbard said that, with regards to scrutiny and the views expressed about whether scrutiny worked or not and with regard to good practice in scrutiny, reports from government and from think tanks and research studies had expressed the view that scrutiny could not work well in a rigid whipping environment as in Sheffield. There were decisions to be made about what scrutiny arrangements might be implemented in a modern committee system and that might incorporate an integrated scrutiny function or the inclusion of one or two scrutiny boards.

She referred to Select Committees in Parliament and to the appointment of members of the opposition to chair them and said that, under the Localism Act, it was local communities who were the check and balance for local authorities. She said that she did not believe in scrutiny in which the Council inspected itself and also said that the party divisions were apparent in the minutes of scrutiny committee meetings and that she was not aware of one decision which had been significantly modified or overturned by scrutiny in the Council.

Almost all of the local authorities which had changed to the committee system had sought to make sure that it was cost neutral and that would involve less bureaucracy and there were also so evaluations of what those councils had done. She also emphasised that councils were not moving back to the old committee system previously operating in local authorities. Such a change was something that was possible at a local level.

She commented that she would agree in relation to citizens’ assemblies and other ways of thinking and which indicated the strength of democracy in the city.

Ruth Hubbard stated that if the Council did not make a decision on this matter, a petition would be submitted at the end of August. The task for Council to pass a motion to change its model of governance or a referendum would happen, which she said would result in a vote to change to a committee system.

Councillor Olivia Blake responded to issues raised during the debate. She acknowledged the range of issues discussed during the debate and stated that a large part of the petition was about cross party working. She said that the Council was not authoritarian and that there was good democracy in Sheffield and the presence of a good civil society in the City and that should be respected and acknowledged by Members. Scrutiny was very important and it had also brought about change such as with regards to the closure of the walk in centre, which had shown cross party working at its best.

Councillor Blake acknowledged that there were lots of challenges and issues in relation to the maters raised by the petition and debate and which needed to be considered. The Council wished to increase transparency and engagement and to continue to have the debate and take the work forward and to make sure that what was in place worked for the people of Sheffield and that councillors, as representatives of the people, were able to do their job to the best of their ability.

The outcome of the debate on the petition was as follows:-

Proposal 1

It was moved by Councillor Olivia Blake and seconded by Councillor Peter Rippon, that:-

The matter be referred to the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance to work cross party and with the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, to bring a report back, following that engagement, to full Council within a period no later than 6 months’ time.

Proposal 2

It was moved by Councillor Simon Clement-Jones and seconded by Councillor Penny Baker, that:-

The action requested by the petitioners be supported and a report be brought forward to a future meeting of full Council, which may, by reason of timing, be an extraordinary meeting, to take a decision on a change of governance arrangements.

On being put to the vote, the above motion was not carried.

The votes on proposal 2 were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

Proposal 3

It was moved by Councillor Martin Phipps and seconded by Councillor Douglas Johnson, that:-

The matter be referred to an emergency meeting of the full Council for a motion on adopting a modern committee system.

On being put to the vote, the above motion was not carried.

Proposal 1 was then put to the vote and was carried as follows:-

RESOLVED:  That this Council:-

(a)      notes the Sheffield People’s Petition; and

(b)      refers the matter to the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance to work cross party and with the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, to bring a report back, following that engagement, to full Council within a period no later than 6 months’ time.

The votes on proposal 1 were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-