Agenda item

5.1

Public Question on Cleared Sites Contract Cabinet report – Green Estate Ltd

5.2

Bridget Ingle asked as part of the tender process, will potential contractors be required to demonstrate that they provide the same level of support to local communities as the existing contractor Green Estate Ltd? For example, Green Estate worked with people on social care budgets and offered long term volunteering opportunities. The impact of this commitment and socially beneficial approach was much greater than a requirement to ‘demonstrate a willingness to provide volunteering opportunities where appropriate’ which is mentioned in the current Cabinet report. As a social enterprise organisation, Green Estate had very different aims and objectives when compared to other commercial contractors.  Ms. Ingle also asked had there been an evaluation of the impact of their work within local communities over and above the maintenance of cleared sites?’

5.3

She also asked whether the procurement process is in line with the Social Value Act introduced last year and did the Council consider       

the social value work that Green Estate undertook in Wincobank to be invaluable and she was sure it was in the case of other areas of Sheffield and that, by attending the meeting today she wanted to make sure that other potential contractors would offer the same level of support if they were awarded the contract.

5.4

Ms Ingle therefore asked how the proposed service to be procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area, and how, in conducting the process of procurement, the Council might act with a view to securing that improvement.

5.5

Councillor Harry Harpham (Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) responded that he recognised the excellent work that Green Estate Limited had undertaken across the City as one of the Council’s partners but that the Council had to ensure that it met its responsibilities in achieving value for money on behalf of Council taxpayers. He stated that every Council contract let was based 70% on price and 30% on quality which included consideration of the number of apprentices employed by contractors, visits made to schools and work experience placements. The Cleared Sites contract would afford training opportunities by the contractor who was successful in securing the contract and the Council would be seeking added value in the contract through the offer of volunteering opportunities and the payment of the Living Wage and this would have a bearing on the award of the contract. However, he re-iterated that the Council had to bear in mind contract cost because of the financial situation the Council found itself in and the need to fulfil its duty to Council taxpayers.

5.6

Public Question on Provision of Meat for Schools

5.7

Nigel Slack referred to a piece about the horsemeat scandal in the Lancaster Guardian of 18^th February, 2013 which mentioned Sheffield Schools and quoted the following text from that publication:-.

“…Meanwhile, Sheffield Council said it had suspended the use of all processed meat in school meals with immediate effect, as a precautionary measure to protect student safety. The decision was made jointly with its catering company, the council said…”

Mr Slack referred to the fact that he had seen no comment on this in local press and asked whether Lancashire schools were supplied by Taylor Shaw, as Sheffield schools were?

5.8

He also asked, as part of this precautionary approach, had Taylor Shaw undertaken any test on produce supplied by them and had the Council? If so, what were the results and if not, why not?

5.9

Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families) referred to the large degrees of publicity given to the use of horse meat in processed foods but that the Council had initially been satisfied that, under its contract with Taylor Shaw, there was little processed food supplied for use by schools, with most of the meat being purchased being of a high quality from Underwood’s in Rotherham. The Council was also satisfied with its other supplier of meat products. However, as the food chain became more stretched the City Council decided with Taylor Shaw that it would be best to withdraw the little processed meat products that were supplied to the Council for use in schools as a precautionary measure pending further tests being carried out by the Food Standards Agency on supplies in order to detect whether they had been contaminated..  

5.10

Councillor Drayton added that the Council had drawn attention to this action on the schools intraweb and that she and the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, had written to Head-teachers and Chairs of School Governors advising them that if they were not in receipt of meat products from Taylor Shaw, they should consider taking similar action to that taken by the Council. She was also satisfied that there would be no contamination of hal hal meat due the Council using chicken and lamb and because of the method of slaughter. She also referred to the fact that Taylor Shaw were talking to Underwood’s on the possibility of using high quality mince for  beef burgers

5.11

Councillor Drayton re-iterated that the Council had issued a press release to reassure people that the Council was redoubling its efforts to ensure meat products were free from contamination. In terms of the suppliers to schools in Lancashire, Councillor Drayton indicated that she would respond to Mr Slack on this in due course.

5.12

Public Question on Proposed Demolition of Edwardian Wing of the Jessop’s Hospital

5.13

Nigel Slack expressed concern at the decisions made by the City Centre and West Planning and Highways Committee in December, 2012 and on 25^th February, 2013 concerning the demolition of the Edwardian wing of the former Jessop Hospital for Women. He alleged that there was clearly doubt as to the legality of the decisions made, both in December and on the 25^th February and would the Council look into this via a Scrutiny Committee?

5.14

Mr Slack commented on what he considered to be flaws in the case made by the University of Sheffield for additional space and in their submission of the application for permission to demolish the Edwardian wing, particularly the failure to explore alternative solutions. He suggested that if the demolition took place, then this would destroy a vital part of Sheffield’s built heritage. He asked was there a member of this Cabinet that will stand up for the heritage of Sheffield, as well as it’s future, and oppose this decision and would the Council (a) support it’s own planning statement that :-

“Sheffield has a very rich history and this is reflected in its diverse built environment.  We believe it is important to recognise and work to protect our built heritage across the City.” (Source: Sheffield City Council website)

or (b) set a precedent for future development where heritage is less important than economics?

5.15

Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development) responded that Planning Committees were not decision making bodies in the sense that they of Council policy and that the Committees were charged with considering individual planning applications, basing its decisions on current national planning laws and, therefore such decisions could not be referred to scrutiny and the decision taken on the Jessop’s building would stand.

5.16

Councillor Bramall stated that he was satisfied that the decision had been taken properly, but he indicated that he would examine the comments made by Mr Slack further and respond to him in due course. Councillor Bramall believed that the new development would be economically beneficial in the long-run supporting the City’s strategy of expanding Advanced Manufacturing. He stated that the Council had good reputation as regards the protection of historic buildings and had, over a number of years compiled a list of buildings that were of significant historical importance although they were not listed and had also worked hard to refurbish buildings with a view to removing them from the buildings at risk register.

5.17

Public Questions of Redesign of Early Years Service

A number of questions were asked in relation to the Redesign of the Early Years Service in respect of the following:-

5.18

Liz Russo, representing Ellesmere Children’s Centre, asked how places for children from those centres which would have to be closed would be found when the waiting lists for Local Authority Children’s Centres were already oversubscribed? She asked why this had happened and who would address the situation?

5.19

Safine Ali Sheh questioned how the proposals would impact on staff currently working in the children’s centres and whether their experience and qualifications would be wasted if they were made redundant as a result of the proposals?

5.20

Lena Mohammed commented that all childcare providers in Fir Vale had moved to providing childcare during term time only and questioned how this provision could continue when funding was being cut for the under 2 year olds?

5.21

Peter Davies, representing the GMB Union, reported that he had submitted a five page document to the meeting of Children, Young People and Families Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee on 24th January, 2013which had called-in the Cabinet decision to consult on the proposals. As yet he had not received a response to the document. He stated that this was an important issue for GMB members who were now vulnerable to redundancy. He had further submitted questions to the Full Council meeting but again had received no response. He therefore asked when he would be receiving a response to his questions?

5.22

Abtisam Mohammed, representing the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) Network, referred to a comment in the officer report which she believed to be racist and which had upset a number of members of the BME community and therefore questioned why officers considered this appropriate to be included within a public document?

5.23

Emma Grundy referred to the consultation which had been undertaken within childcare settings and referred to the difficulty which many parents had filling in the questionnaire when English was not their first language. She believed that this was not taken into account in the consultation and as a result many parents were not able to complete the questionnaire in the way that they would have wished to. She asked why it was not possible to include verbal comments in the report.

5.24

Clare Ward, representing Darnall Community Nursery, asked how confident the Council were of the figures they had quoted for children entitled to Free Educational Learning (FEL) given that at a briefing meeting held prior to the Cabinet meeting one area was told that only 22 children were eligible but there were 24 children already in the local area before the publicity had commenced.

5.25

Elaine Bennett asked why FEL money could not be used to subsidise childcare for the 0-2 year olds and why did the report not address the lack of funding for working parents in disadvantaged areas?

5.26

Leanne McMain asked why it had been stated in the consultation/questionnaire that funding would be provided for children with special educational needs and for those children in deprived areas when it was those children who would be most directly affected by the proposals.

5.27

Tracy Lee, representing Woodthorpe and Wybourn Children’s Centres, commented that staff had consistently identified the need for detailed negotiation on the proposals with Council staff and this had not been forthcoming. As a result of the proposals the Centres would have to close on 29^th March and 61 children would have to be placed in other settings when there were insufficient places already?. She therefore asked where these children would go and who would ensure their safety?

5.28

Sally Pearse, representing Tinsley Parents and Children’s Consortium, asked what the Council’s reason was for believing the settings in areas of disadvantage could become sustainable? If it was believed that the FEL money would suffice, why would the Council not agree temporary transitional funding until the two year FEL was fully in place?

5.29

Tracy Wright commented that, as a provider of adult training courses, she was concerned that parents were being told that they could no longer access training as there would no longer be childcare for the under 2’s because of the funding cuts. She asked what the Council would do to meet these parents’ needs as the courses could lead to employment and other opportunities?

5.30

Rahida Sharif asked how long the Council believed it would take parents to take up the 2 year FEL offer given that the subsidy for centres was ending next month and no publicity on the offer had started?

5.31

Linda Edwards asked two questions. She questioned whether, given that the consultation contains information that was often difficult to understand, would the Council allow all the evidence to be examined and inspected by an independent group of statisticians with a view to simplifying the information for members of the public?

5.32

She further referred to paragraph 4.6.9 of the officer report which acknowledged the significant level of concern about the closure of provision and stated that what was evident was that there was inequity across the City. She commented that this was correct but questioned how ceasing the funding to childcare providers would address this inequity?

5.33

Emma Chadwick asked why the DVD which had been made by parents and contained a number of questions from parents who had been unable to attend the meeting had not been allowed to be shown. She referred to statistics which showed that 34% of referrals to Multi-Agency Support Teams (MAST) were made by Early Years professionals and questioned why the Council were driving the MAST service forward which appeared to have little need when Early Years professionals were being made redundant. Ms Chadwick finally asked why had  £1m been spent on the Fairness Commission which had highlighted issues with MAST and asked had the money been well spent and why had this been  ignored by the Leader of the Council?

5.34

In response the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore stated that the Fairness Commission had not cost £1m; this was the funding which had been set aside to implement the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission itself had cost nothing other than administration costs. The Council, had, however, spent money on deprived areas on the consequences of welfare reform, such as Council Tax benefit reductions and the “bedroom tax”

5.35

Councillor Jackie Drayton stated that there were many families within disadvantaged areas who were not currently accessing FEL funding. It was important to work with community providers to meet with the families and inform them of the funding opportunities available through FEL and their rights to this funding which was available all year and not just in term time. For example, part-time single parents, working two hours in the early evening, could access funding for childcare which would have been available in tem-time only.

5.36

Councillor Drayton commented that it was important that low paid working parents had access to full time childcare. The Council needed to ensure that provision stretched across the whole year. However, she stated that the £3.8m funding allocated to FEL was money which had been taken from the Early Intervention Grant and the Council needed to work together with providers to ensure the quality of service continued to be provided.

5.37

In response to the questions from GMB, she commented that she had attended the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee that was referred to and was not made aware of the document and questions. She stated that most of the questions posed had been answered at the meeting but if Mr Davies believed his questions had not been addressed he should contact Councillor Drayton.

5.38

Councillor stated that the consultation had not simply been about the questionnaires. Councillor Drayton apologised if people felt they couldn’t understand what was in the questionnaires and she hoped that those people who supported people filling in the questionnaires would assist parents who had a problem. The consultation had taken place over a number of years and the campaign against the redesigned services and, in effect, formed part of the consultation and some aspects of the Council’s proposals had been altered as a result of responses received.

5.39

She did not believe that the withdrawal of funding was affecting some areas of the City disproportionately and the withdrawal of the Early Intervention Grant would impact on the City as a whole. Savings had been made in premises costs, management costs and administration and childcare providers should look at their own structures to see if similar savings could be made. It was important to emphasise that £6.8m had been cut from the Early Intervention Grant and savings had to be made as a result. It was vital, however, that childcare provision could continue and the Council was working with existing providers and alternative providers to ensure this in the next financial year.

5.40

The Council understood that many organisations were key parts of their communities and were keen to see them continue but the Council could no longer afford to provide subsidy grants given that the funding had been withdrawn by the Government. Councillor Drayton cautioned that it was crucial that organisations/providers became sustainable this year as the Council were facing a further £50m cut next year.

5.41

Councillor Drayton acknowledged that the comment in the report referred to by some of the questioners should not have been included. Although this was a comment made during the consultation and not an officer comment, it still should not have been included and was totally unacceptable and she therefore apologised for any offence taken.

5.42

The EIA had requested that a responder state their nationality and ethnic origin and a breakdown of the figures could be provided. The EIA had acknowledged that the proposals would impact on staff and up to 50 jobs would be lost within the Council but it was stated in the report that every effort would be made to ensure some provision across all areas. It was recognised that staff providing services were vulnerable and the Council would eek to address this and help maintain services where it could.

5.43

Dawn Walton (Assistant Director, Prevention and Early Intervention) commented that the discrepancies in the figures of those qualified for FEL, referred to by a questioner may have been a result of the fact that the Council collected data in respect of two year olds from Health Authority data. However, there may have been some two year olds who travelled in from other areas which may have had an impact on the figures.