Agenda item

5.1

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) indicated that it was proposed that the Cabinet would, at this point, consider public questions other than those connected with the item of business relating to the Redesign of the Early Years’ Service, which would be considered, along with associated petitions, as part of that item.    

5.2

Release of Council reports submitted to Council Meetings

5.2.1

Mr Nigel Slack asked, at the forthcoming Audit Committee meeting on Thursday, 13^th December the following item appears on the agenda:-;

 “12.     Financial/Commercial Monitoring of External Relationships

            Report of the Executive Director, Resources

           (Note: The report is not available to the public and press because it

            contains exempt information).”

Could the Council explain the nature of the information that causes this report to be censored, and why that information really requires that the whole document be kept secret or whether the relevant information could be ‘redacted’ and the rest of the report released?

5.2.2

In response, Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) stated that sometimes it was difficult, when a report came forward to release all information as some would be considered commercially sensitive and, on some occasions, if a meeting decided to discuss such information, then the public and press would be asked to leave the meeting. In this particular case, he would examine whether some of the report could be released with any confidential information redacted out, but this would only occur following the consideration by the item at the Audit Committee.  

5.3

Council Response to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

5.3.1

Mr Nigel Slack referred to the fact that, on the 7^th November 2012 I submitted a written question to Council for which he had yet to receive a response. He, therefore, restated that question in the hope of expediting an answer.

“The deadline for submissions to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has passed.  I am disappointed that this council has missed the opportunity to support this inquiry, an important attempt to reform the broken system of local government in this country.

The Council seemed keen on the inquiry when last I asked a question on this subject and the Leader urged all Councillors to make individual submissions, as well as promising to publish their response to the inquiry should they make a submission.

Could the Council explain their reason for choosing not to make a submission to the Committee?

It is a further disappointment that only one councillor of the whole chamber took the time to support the inquiry and make a submission, it took me just ten minutes.  Whilst I do not expect the leader to comment on the minds of other members could she explain why, considering the urging commented on above, she did not make an individual submission?”

Mr Slack indicated that, should the Council be concerned that he was putting words in peoples’ mouths, he included the relevant extract from the minutes.

5.3.2

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) confirmed that she had received Mr Slack’s e-mail and she read out a  response thereto as follows;-

“I had hoped that I had made my position clear with my response to your previous Council question, which was that I did not agree with you that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee was the most significant opportunity for restoring the reputation of local government.

I couldn’t personally agree to a “written guarantee” of local government rights and responsibilities and codified arrangements for the funding of local government without the detail of what that would mean for Sheffield.

An example of my scepticism would be the shambolic way in which the current Government have devolved responsibility for Council Tax Benefit without the funding necessary to operate a “national scheme” and to delay the detail of the funding of such a scheme, which makes it virtually impossible to implement the scheme within the timescales set by the Government. Whilst greater devolution of powers to local government is a considerable step in the right direction, this needs to be accompanied by fundamental funding and I would want to see what the reform would be.

I also feel quite apathetic regarding any consultation carried out on behalf of Parliament as I believe the current Government will do exactly as they wish. The Leveson Inquiry is a prime example and this was a judicial public inquiry costing over £5 million where the Prime Minister has ignored the parts he didn’t agree with. This Government will do exactly what they want without regard to the impact that their decisions have on their citizens.

Finally, the Council’s Research and Policy Team have other priorities, such as the Fairness Commission, which will actually make a real difference to the lives of the people of Sheffield.

Out of 84 Members of the Council, only one responded and she

(Councillor Dore) could not speak for the remaining Members.”

5.4

Securing and Sustaining Good Quality Personalised Social Care for Adults

5.4.1

Mr Peter Davies referred to the report on the agenda – “Securing and Sustaining Good Quality Personalised Social Care for Adults” and to proposals for the establishment, amongst other options, an Arms Length Management Company or Workers’ Co-operative to deliver such services. Mr Davies suggested that, based upon experience, there was seldom any resource applied to services which were the subject of outsourcing, for example, the City-wide Alarm Service. He asked, therefore, what resources  would be invested into the existing model of provision of adult social care, as an alternative to outsourcing services

5.4.2

Councillor Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living) responded that one of the aims of the report was to set the strategic approach to the provision of adult social care in the City, recognising the financial savings to be made by the Council. She added that the imposition of Government cuts had, unfortunately, required the Council to give consideration to the way it delivered local services. In adult social care, people were now able to choose the services that they required which would be funded by personal budgets agreed with the Council. Therefore, the services they chose to receive could, under current arrangements, be provided by a variety of adult social care providers. However, the Council still retained a duty to ensure that people received the best quality care and the Council acknowledged the need, as described in the report, to examine how the services provided by the Council would be delivered in the future. This was an issue which had formed the basis of extensive discussions with officers.       

5.4.3

Councillor Lea added that a Programme Board had been established to examine the options available to the City Council for the delivery of services including what level of direct control the Council needed in order to ensure that the services provided met people’s personal requirements and need. It was proposed that the Board would comprise stakeholders and partners, including trade union representatives, who would have an input into service design and the Board’s findings would be reported to the Executive Director, Communities and herself, as Cabinet Member for this area of service, with a view to identifying a Business Plan to be taken forward. It was envisaged that the Programme Board would produce its first report in June, 2013 with a final report being produced later that year.

5.4.4

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) also responded that, as far as the City-wide Alarm Service was concerned, the Council was faced with a requirement to make savings over the next financial year and the Council would have to make some tough decisions based upon the demand for services and cuts in Government financial support for local authorities. He added that the Council had now resolved the collective dispute raised by the trade unions concerning the City-wide Alarm service, but the trade unions had withdrawn from Service Delivery Evaluation Process and the Council, therefore, had no option but to take forward this work in light of the huge budgetary savings it had already made and the additional savings it would be required to make in 2013/14.