Agenda item

9.1

It was formally moved by Councillor Ruth Mersereau, and formally seconded by Councillor Douglas Johnson, that this Council:-

(a)       notes that, despite the destructive cuts inflicted by the policy of austerity, this Administration is still responsible for spending hundreds of millions of pounds each year;

(b)       believes this Administration should get the best value for money it can because, if money is wasted, this means cuts to other areas of spending, especially at a time when budgets are under pressure;

(c)        also believes that a failure to do routine work quickly and cheaply leads to inertia and a lack of action;

(d)       notes the following examples of work that this Council believes is over-priced:-

(i)         £3,500 to install just two cycle parking hoops; and

(ii)        installation of park benches at £1,100 each; and

(e)       therefore calls on the Administration to examine areas of spending where more might be obtained for the Council’s resources.

9.1.1

(NOTE: In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.3(e) (Scope of Notices of Motion), paragraphs (d)(i), (ii) and (iv) of the Motion, as published on the agenda, were rejected at the meeting by the Chief Executive on the grounds of being factually inaccurate.  This followed the Council agreeing not to give its consent (under Council Procedure Rule 17.10(a) – Alteration of Motion or Amendment) to a request made on behalf of the mover of the Motion to alter the wording of those three paragraphs in order to make them factually accurate.)

9.2

Whereupon, it was formally moved by Councillor Bob Johnson, and formally seconded by Councillor Mary Lea, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       unequivocally condemns what has now been nearly a decade of austerity inflicted on this Council and believes that it is a matter of plain fact that it is not possible to impose the level of cuts that have been forced on this Council without having a significant impact on services and the projects delivered by the Council;

(b)       believes that public money should always be spent wisely and confirms that the present Administration is continuously maximising value for money and the amounts delivered for the Council’s resources, and believes that nine years into austerity it is incredulous that the Green Group have called on “the Administration to examine areas of spending where more might be obtained for the Council’s resources”, as this is, of course, already done through the budget process;

(c)        regrets that the politics of this motion is akin to the language used by former Conservative Minister, the Rt. Hon. Lord Eric Pickles when the Coalition government first began austerity and the attack on local government funding, and also of the tactics of the Tax Payers Alliance, and implies that the Green Party feel that it is not austerity that is the problem, but how councils spend money based on erroneous and misleading information, in an echo of the Conservative Party’s defence of austerity and public spending cuts;

(d)       notes that, since 2010, the Council has lost 50% of its Government grants, and seen cuts and financial pressures amounting to £460 million over this time, and with the Council already being cut to the bone, for the Green Group to suggest that there is inertia and a lack of action in tackling this is disrespectful to all Council staff, from care workers and teachers to Council officers, who work hard to ensure that the very best is made of every Council resource;

(e)       notes that the original motion contained a number of highly misleading inaccuracies, and asks the Chief Executive to provide a response to the movers of the motion as to how the Council has maximised value for money in relation to all the schemes listed in the original motion; and

(f)        asks that a copy of this motion is sent to all Council trade unions to make it clear that the Council does not agree with the Green Party attacks on public spending and Council workers.

9.3

It was then formally moved by Councillor Simon Clement-Jones, and formally seconded by Councillor Andrew Sangar, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       notes that the Administration is responsible for spending hundreds of millions of pounds each year;

(b)       believes this Administration should get the best value for money it can because, if money is wasted, this means cuts to other areas of spending, especially at a time when budgets are under pressure;

(c)        believes that the recent £1million ‘loan’ to Sheffield International Venues (SIV) shows the Administration is not taking care of money and assets of the great city of Sheffield;

(d)       notes that the Administration could have chosen to change to a committee system without a referendum and save tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds, and voted against a proposal to change to a committee system in June 2018;

(e)       believes that local people are best placed to make decisions about how tax payers’ money is spent and the Administration needs to trust the people of Sheffield in how it is spent;

(f)        believes central control from the Town Hall will always cost more and mean decisions are made by the very few who only represent a small part of Sheffield;

(g)       believes that devolution will provide value for money and Community Assemblies showed that devolution can provide solutions and works at a lower price that involves the local communities; and

(h)       resolves to investigate increased devolution and bring a report back to full Council.

9.4

The amendment moved by Councillor Bob Johnson was put to the vote and was carried.

9.5

The amendment moved by Councillor Simon Clement-Jones was put to the vote and was negatived.

9.5.1

The votes on the amendment moved by Councillor Simon Clement-Jones were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

9.6

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:- 

(a)       unequivocally condemns what has now been nearly a decade of austerity inflicted on this Council and believes that it is a matter of plain fact that it is not possible to impose the level of cuts that have been forced on this Council without having a significant impact on services and the projects delivered by the Council;

(b)       believes that public money should always be spent wisely and confirms that the present Administration is continuously maximising value for money and the amounts delivered for the Council’s resources, and believes that nine years into austerity it is incredulous that the Green Group have called on “the Administration to examine areas of spending where more might be obtained for the Council’s resources”, as this is, of course, already done through the budget process;

(c)        regrets that the politics of this motion is akin to the language used by former Conservative Minister, the Rt. Hon. Lord Eric Pickles when the Coalition government first began austerity and the attack on local government funding, and also of the tactics of the Tax Payers Alliance, and implies that the Green Party feel that it is not austerity that is the problem, but how councils spend money based on erroneous and misleading information, in an echo of the Conservative Party’s defence of austerity and public spending cuts;

(d)       notes that, since 2010, the Council has lost 50% of its Government grants, and seen cuts and financial pressures amounting to £460 million over this time, and with the Council already being cut to the bone, for the Green Group to suggest that there is inertia and a lack of action in tackling this is disrespectful to all Council staff, from care workers and teachers to Council officers, who work hard to ensure that the very best is made of every Council resource;

(e)       notes that the original motion contained a number of highly misleading inaccuracies, and asks the Chief Executive to provide a response to the movers of the motion as to how the Council has maximised value for money in relation to all the schemes listed in the original motion; and

(f)        asks that a copy of this motion is sent to all Council trade unions to make it clear that the Council does not agree with the Green Party attacks on public spending and Council workers.