Agenda item

The following questions were asked concerning the Household Waste Recycling Centres Service and the industrial dispute in relation thereto:-

Mr Peter Davies referred to the fact that the Household Waste and Recycling Centres (HWRC) contract was part of the Veolia contract and was put out to tender in 2011 and that Councillor Julie Dore has said that in face of the Government’s cuts, that the Council needed to be innovative and seek all alternatives to finding efficiencies to reduce the impact on jobs and services as much as possible. There was much concern about the three tier delivery model that made up the contract.

He stated that people where now informed that a buy out for this contract would be too expensive for the Council. He asked why didn’t the Council consider putting in its own bid for the contract last year and, in asking the question, asked the Leader to bear in mind the officer response to this question when it was asked at the time of the of the process opening which was that the Council simply did not have the capacity to bid.   

Ms Bridget Gilbert stated that the GMB trade union represented the vast majority of staff who work on  the HWRC, the vast majority of Veolia employees in Sheffield; and is a fully recognised trade union by Veolia and the Council. She added that the GMB sit on Council tender evaluation panels, and have worked for many years  within the Council’s processes and procedures. She asked, why did the Council refuse to allow the GMB to take part in the tender process for the contract in 2012?  

Mr. Richard Brown stated that the Council, Veolia and SOVA had received several requests from the GMB with regard to the finance generated by the recycling service. The GMB had not received any response from the Council on this and, therefore had submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act concerning payments that the Council make and receive. He stated that the response was minimal, so the GMB had put together their own estimated figures, taken from the FOI response, conversations with the workforce and the former Managing Director of the previous contractor and price lists submitted as part of the tender documentation in 2012.

Whilst the GMB accepted that these were only estimates, he asked what evidence had Council officers given to Councillor Jack Scott to show that these estimates were wrong and, if they were, why was this information included in the tender outline/guidance last year?

Mr Jim Rodgers referred to alleged comments by Councillor Jack Scott, calling the references made by the GMB about the use and abuse of workers recruited via the Action for Employment (AfE) Programme and their members in this dispute as “dangerous”. He referred to comments in the press concerning the employment support programme.

However, GMB members working on HWRC sites were worried that people on the A4E programme would be used to replace them and take over their jobs, which is what has happened throughout the dispute. He asked whether it was far more dangerous to ignore the struggles of current HWRC workers in their fight for justice  and fairness and a right to carry on doing the jobs that clearly still exist an for which they were employed?

Mr Anthony Robshaw asked whether the Council was aware that SOVA had brought in a former manager from a previous contractor to help run the service. Although the individual concerned is carrying out a role, 90% of which would normally be covered by foremen, SOVA have refused to include him in the vulnerability pool for redundancy selection.

When the GMB questioned this, they were told that he held a COTC certificate and was essential to their requirements. The GMB subsequently offered to put foreman through the same qualification, but SOVA refused and changed his title.

Mr Robshaw asked if the Council would agree that workers have the right to fairness in a selection procedure and that its partners should review  this decision.

Mr. Alan Garnham asked whether the Council was aware that the foreman referred to above previously left the employment of the last contractor, shortly after admitting to sexual harassment and bullying and that the first person to have lost her job since the contract was taken over was his victim and the second was her son.   

Mr Steve Moremont asked whether the Council were aware that the Manager/Foreman was earning the equivalent to two of the salaries of the five workers that have now lost their jobs?

Mr Martin Lyons stated that the GMB had evidence on film and are raising the following issues, with Veolia, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He asked if the Council was aware that, during the strike action, health and safety seems no longer to be a priority. Examples of this are when a JCB compactor has been used without a banks man, the use of stabilisers and whilst members of the public are in the vicinity; and where it appears that open skips are being used to dispose of asbestos.    

Mr Chaz Lockett asked whether the Council was aware that scrap merchants were taking recyclable materials from members of the public whilst they queued to use the HWRCs.

Mr Gordon Parkes asked what guarantees could the Council give to the people of Sheffield that the HRWCs would be able to cope with the increase in demand for these services once the City move to fortnightly bin collections?

Mr Mick Brooke asked whether the Council agreed that, without

compromise on the part of all parties – the GMB, the Council, Veolia and the Arbitration, Conciliation Advisory Service (ACAS), the dispute on HWRCs cannot be resolved and, if so, then why have the Council not agreed to convene a meeting along this basis, which the GMB have proposed through ACAS.

Sam Morecroft stated that the GMB have, today, handed in 600 letters from members of the public to Councillors and Members of Parliament, asking for a response to their concerns over the recycling closures and other issues relating to the dispute. He asked whether Labour Councillors will be allowed to answer those letters to their constituents or have they been instructed by their Party to refer the enquiries to Councillor Jack Scott?        

In response to the above questions, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Julie Dore) stated that she had been involved in a considerable amount of discussion on budgets and services over the past year. The Council was always examining ways in which it could be innovative in relation to the provision of services. However, the scale of the financial cuts that the Council was being asked to make, amounting to £170 million over three years meant that this could not simply be achieved through making efficiencies.  It involved the Council having to make massive and unprecedented cuts.

Councillor Dore stated that she was not aware of any Council response to say that it did not have the capacity in terms of submitting a tender for the Waste contract last year, There were less resources and the Council had experienced the loss of over 1200 jobs so far. She stated that was also worried about the Council’s ability to continue to deliver services in the context of diminishing resources but accepted that it was her responsibility to make sure the Council could maximise the use of resources to deliver services.

She acknowledged that the issues now raised regarding representatives of the GMB, Veolia and the Council sitting on a tender evaluation panel and potential other alternatives should be resolved as soon as possible and stated that she would raise the issues with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Waste and Streetscene (Councillor Jack Scott) on his return. Other matters would be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

In relation to the Action for Employment Programme, Councillor Dore responded that the Government had given joint responsibility for the provision of the Programme to the SERCO Group plc, SERCO had sub-contracted work with specific groups under the programme to organisations including SOVA. She was concerned if the sub-contractors were skimming off profits.

The Council acknowledged that everyone has employment rights in relation to issues including redundancies, re-deployment and health and safety and that there needed further examination of such matters in terms of fairness. She, therefore, would request one of the Council’s Scrutiny and Policy Development Committees to consider these matters.

Councillor Dore indicated that she was unable to respond on the matters raised in relation to the posts of Manager and Foreman, as she did not know the specifics of the situation. However, the Council now needed to ensure the Council’s Waste contract was delivered within the context of the implementation of the 14 day waste collection service and the Council’s policy of trying, as far as possible, of minimising job losses whilst maintaining services.  

She stated that she would ask the Cabinet Member for Environment, Waste and Streetscene (Councillor Jack Scott) to examine the matters raised by all of the questioners so that these could be resolved.

(b)       Proposed development of Tesco Express store at Parkhead

Mr John Cobbing referred to the application to build a Tesco Express Store at Parkhead, Ecclesall Road South  and stated that there were concerns relating to noise associated with traffic and parking. He urged Members of the Council to visit the site of a similar store at Abbeydale Road South, Totley where there had also been complaints in relation to air conditioning units etc.  He asked Members to bear this in mind in their consideration of the proposed  Parkhead development which would fall within an already overcrowded site in that area.

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) responded that the issues raised would normally be raised within the consideration of formal planning applications and he would pass the comments made to Planning Officers so that these could be taken into account during the planning process. 

(c)       Provision of Social Care Services

Mr David Kirkham referred to the recent death of his father’s partner and to the fact that the Adult Social Care Service had required his father to wait approximately two months for an initial assessment for care support which had created a difficult situation for his immediate family. He suggested that the Country’s social care budget was underfunded by £1 billion and that, despite Andrew Lansley’s delivery of an extra £648 for social care, some £115 million had been spent on maintaining existing eligibility criteria. He stated that this situation was making people in Sheffield suffer and, he asked how much longer will the Council allow its residents to suffer at austerity’s bidding.

The Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living (Councillor Mary Lea) gave her condolences to Mr Kirkham’s father and family. She stated that she would look into Mr Kirkham’s case, but indicated that there were significant problems with the funding of adult social care locally and nationally. Over the past couple of years Andrew Dilnott had tried to build a policy consensus on the funding and response to the provision of adult social care nationally. She added, however, that the Conservative Party had withdrawn from consensual discussions, following the Dilnott report without any alternative proposals, leaving a large policy vacuum in this area.

The cost of providing adult social care in Sheffield relied on Government funding. The Council had striven, against this background to protect adult social care services, albeit at the expense of other services, with protection being afforded to front line services and eligibility criteria, but at the cost of a loss of jobs and expertise in other areas of the Council. 

The Council, like many other local authorities, was waiting for the Government to bring forward proposals in this area of policy and the Council had made representations to Government a few months ago and Councillor Lea stated that she would be happy to share this correspondence with Mr Kirkham. However, she stated that the provision of adult social care was not cheap and there was a need to ensure that access to such services was available to everybody, taking into account their financial circumstances. The Government needed to examine ways of providing good quality care in the United Kingdom within a formula that was fair to everyone. The Council, for its part, would strive to protect services and provide them in an innovative manner.

(d)       Public Investment in Private Corporations

Mr Nigel Slack asked why the Council believe it appropriate to support large amounts of public investment in profitable, private corporations.  In asking his question Mr Slack referred to the minutes of the Council meeting of 4^th April, 2012 which identified that expenditure of £6.4 million would be made to improve South Yorkshire’s bus network and allow Stagecoach Sheffield to purchase 19 new green buses. He stated that Stagecoach made enormous profits and asked why the funding had been approved as well as a further £58 million to pilot an extension of the tram system from Sheffield to Rotherham which, he suggested, would be a poor investment, yielding only approximately 30 jobs.

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) responded that the investment referred to by Mr Slack had been provided by the Government in order to encourage the use of greener vehicles and the extension of the Supertram light rail system. In the latter case, the £58 million would be used as part of a UK trial to test new technology and identify potential problems with extending a light rail system. He added that the £58 million included potential funding to deconstruct the pilot’s infrastructure should the project fail. 

He believed the project was worthwhile in that it would assist in delivering future expansion of the Supertram network across the City as well as the use of green buses.

(e)      Street Trading on the High Street

Mr Knowledge Kutekwa asked whether in terms of street trading on the high street, such trading was conducted on a free market or black market basis?

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) responded that there was a problem in terms of licensing street traders in that where if such traders were mobile they were able to avoid the regulatory framework. Alternatively, static street trading pitches were included within the legal framework and were subject to local authority licensing. Councillor Bramall indicated that he would write to Mr Kutekwa with further information on this matter. 

(f)      Enhancement of Riverside Development, Wicker

Mr Knowledge Kutekwa asked what progress had been made in enhancing the Riverside Development, Wicker.

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) indicated that the Riverside Development was being enhanced to update flood defences as this area had been the subject of some of the worst flooding in the area in 2007. There was a considerable amount of work to be undertaken in terms of the flood defence materials to be used which required the use of large blocks, which used the best quality materials obtainable in the context of the available funding. There was a wish to make these more attractive, by using artwork, although this was not a permanent solution. Discussion of the works had been undertaken with local businesses and residents and the Council would seek to access funding available from the Environment Agency for more permanent work to improve flood defences..

(g)     Shops, Charities and Tax Relief on Empty Properties

Mr Knowledge Kutekwa asked a question concerning the use of empty shops by charities.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Councillor Bryan Lodge) responded that where shops were empty, landlords can claim business rates relief if the shops were occupied by charities. In some cases and in other areas of the Country, there were concerns about the potential misuse of this provision. However, Sheffield had been highlighted as effectively regulating these sorts of schemes and provided effective enforcement action.   Councillor Lodge stated that he could provide additional information on request.

(h)    Cuts in Policing Budgets

In response to a question by Mr Knowledge Kutekwa on policing, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods (Councillor Harry Harpham) stated that there was much public concern regarding cuts to the police budget and this was certainly a matter raised with him by people attending his surgeries.

Cuts in expenditure affected both the frontline and led to a loss of experience at a back office level. Councillor Harpham stated that he agreed that the Government cuts were damaging and hoped that the public’s anger at the situation would lead to a restoration of funding by the Government.  

(i)     Highways Maintenance Private Finance Initiative (PFI)

Mr Philip Abbas asked whether the Highways PFI was a good deal for Sheffield?

In his response, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) indicated that he believed the Highways PFI to be a good thing based on the public’s reaction to the poor state of the City’s roads. He added that the ability of the Council to repair roads and streetlights would be severely restricted in the absence of the PFI programme, which had numerous benefits, including for car users, pedestrians, public transport and cyclists. Improved street lighting would contribute to community safety and reducing the amount of energy used by the Council.  For every £1 the Council spent, another £1 would be received from the Government.

(j)     Fairness, Openness and Transparency

Mr Martin Brighton asked the following questions which were answered by the Leader of the Council (Councillor Julie Dore) as shown:-

“In but one example of false accusations against this citizen an officer has admitted that he sent a forged rent statement to the Local Government Office in a futile attempt to get this citizen and family evicted. He also admits that he was instructed to do so. The Nuremberg Trials come to mind. Neither the Council nor the officer will say who gave that order. Do the members think this behaviour is fair, or cowardly, and what will members do to ensure accountability and honesty ?”

Councillor Dore responded that she did not know who the officer referred to was and that she would need more specific details before she could respond.

“Members have frequently seen how this citizen’s questions are parried away by “playing-the-man-not-the-ball” so as to avoid being held to account. One recent example concerns the questions concerning the decade of council failure as illustrated by the Index of Multiple Deprivation figures, for which this citizen was falsely accused of being wrong, and publicly vilified. I now have the source data, which was compiled by the last government, and which vindicates everything this citizen said. Do members think this behaviour of those who answered is fair, or cowardly, and what will members do to ensure accountability and honesty ?”

Councillor Dore asked that Mr Brighton submit the information in his possession relating to deprivation so that the Council might analyse it and compare any discrepancies to the Council’s own data.

“In the real world it would be considered grossly offensive to avoid answering questions by refusing to accept them on the grounds that they are opinion, when they are based upon established fact. Such denials are in fact just bullying, as this citizen is not allowed to respond. It has been proved time and again that this ruse fails. Do members think that the behaviour of those who answered is fair, or cowardly, and what will members do to ensure accountability and honesty ?”

Councillor Dore responded that the Council also needed questions based upon fact, otherwise the only responses which Members can give are based on opinion, in response to questions which are opinion – based.

“This Council is often reminded of its need to be open, honest, transparent and accountable. How can the Council justify to adhere to these principles when, for example, it withholds information allegedly contained within the Newton Report for six years, before being forced to disclose one sanitised version of the report ?”

Councillor Dore stated that the Newton Report had been published and was in the public domain. She understood that it was intended to publish the report earlier but at that time this was not possible because of criminal proceedings.

“The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has now sent documents showing how the legal department of this Council, upon instruction, has sent material knowingly lying to the information commissioner on several occasions. Examples include falsely claiming to the ICO that this citizen’s first-ever request on one subject was refused because of a history of multiple questions on the subject, and on another occasion claiming that this citizen prevents other citizens from asking questions. All absolute lies. Do members consider that the repeated failures of senior elected members to hold their executives to account to be fair, or cowardly collusion, and how will members ensure an effective remedy ?”

Councillor Dore indicated that she was unaware of the case Mr Brighton was referring to and requested that he should provide further details in writing to the Chief Executive to clarify the matter. She added that Mr Brighton attended most Council and Cabinet meetings and was given the opportunity to ask questions at these meetings and would continue to be afforded such opportunities.

6.3

The Diamond Jubilee celebrations

The Lord Mayor (Councillor John Campbell) referred to the success of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations to mark the 60^th anniversary of Her Majesty, The Queen’s accession to the throne.