Agenda item

Petition concerning opening hours of Household Waste Recycling Centres

The Council received a petition, containing 4,000 signatures, requesting the Council to increase the hours of opening of household waste recycling centres.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Pete Davies, GMB Trade Union, who referred to the background to the current dispute between the Council and employees working at the Council’s Household Waste Recycling Centres. He outlined the concerns of the GMB Union, which represented the employees, that they had not been included on a Tendering Panel, along with representatives of Veolia and SOVA, when the renewal of the current contract and its business model for the recycling service had been considered. He believed that, if the GMB had been represented on the Panel, the current industrial dispute might have been avoided through a business model which would have maintained the level of service, number of jobs and improved the terms and conditions of employees which, he suggested, were insufficient.

Mr Davies added that, since January, 2012, the number of employees had reduced from 44 to 28, but paradoxically, there had been an increase in management posts to 10, which, he considered, was an inappropriate delivery model. Currently, the service was faced with losing jobs and a reduction in the terms and conditions of employees and of opening hours at Recycling Centres. Mr Davies contended that this situation had left employees, who were some of the lowest paid in the City, with little opportunity to earn a living wage and with no alternative but to take strike action, which was part of an overall, massive campaign, captured by the petition submitted to the meeting and the major sacrifices being made by the workforce who had been on strike for 28 days.

Mr Davies stated that the Council’s partners had shown little interest in a business model which would increase income from recycling, but he was pleased that the Council had agreed, through one of its Scrutiny Committees, to examine the position of the current recycling business model and service delivery and the future of recycling in the City in general.   

Following an approach from the GMB to discuss a business model which would keep Household Waste Recycling Centres open to the public, the Council had entered into discussions, the outcome of which was that there had been assurances from the Council, SOVA and Veolia that employees at the Centres would not lose their jobs. Mr Davies stressed that it was now crucial for the Council, starting with the Scrutiny Committee, to ensure that there was an effective approach to recycling services in the City. He stated that problems experienced in Sheffield had implications for surrounding local authority areas as people were taking their waste elsewhere. He also referred to potential capacity issues when the change to fortnightly collections was implemented.

Mr Davies drew the Council’s attention to the fact that industrial action had now been suspended and thanked the Council for its intervention and for listening to the views of GMB members. He hoped that the present momentum would continue.

Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) responded by thanking Mr Davies for presenting the petition to Council and he acknowledged the significant number of people who had signed the petition. He stated that he understood the strength of feeling on this issue, exhibited both by staff and the public and need to pursue the improvement of the service which was crucial in enabling the Council to become a zero landfill Authority. However, the budgetary pressures on the service would remain and needed to be placed in the context of a £170 million reduction in the funding available to the Council over three years and, therefore, there was a need to focus on the problems confronting the service. Some consensus had now been achieved with Veolia and SOVA to improve employee pay and terms and conditions and he concurred that the conversations between respective parties and associated momentum needed to continue.

Councillor Scott said that he believed that it was vital to continue with communications between all parties on the future of the recycling service. As far as the Scrutiny Committee discussions were concerned, he wanted them to be part of a thorough review process, where the Council would, with Veolia and SOVA, seek to address the issues that caused the dispute. He was thankful that a resolution to the dispute had now been found and confirmed that he would continue to work for an effective solution to the problems highlighted by the dispute for the benefit of the public and employees.

Public Questions

(a) Public Questions on the future of the Number 4 Bus Service and Consultation on changes to Bus Services

Mrs Dorothy Manners asked why there were plans to suspend the No. 4 bus service on Psalter Lane and why part of that service would be re-routed from Psalter Lane to Ecclesall Road, which was already serviced by numerous bus services, whilst there were none on Psalter Lane, leaving people, like herself, who relied on an accessible bus service, without one. She also referred to the fact that the current number 4 bus service on Psalter Lane had become increasingly unreliable due, in the main, to mechanical failure, which had created a situation where people had to walk substantial distances to other routes, and to a negative impression of the bus companies concerned.  

Jean Cromar referred to the fact that, under current proposals, the number 4 bus service would be terminated, with public transport between Millhouses and the City Centre being provided by Service 83 via Ecclesall Road. She stated that the number 4 service was well used, but confirmed that the service was plagued by regular bus breakdowns. The buses used on the route were also not accessible by wheelchair users. Therefore, she felt that the service would be discontinued by default. She suggested that the current proposals would diminish the accessibility to public transport for some users, particularly those who lived between Psalter Lane and Ecclesall Road, who were faced with walking up and down steep hills for example, Roche Road and Hunter House Road, which showed that the proposals had paid little attention to the topography of the area or the needs of older or disabled residents in the planning of services. She also pointed out that that there were approximately 24 buses per hour available on Ecclesall Road.

She asked, therefore, if the Council would support the continuation of that part of the service from Banner Cross to Psalter Lane and Cemetery Road and its connection with services on Ecclesall Road as well as endorsing the view of the local Community Assembly that there should still be a bus service on Psalter Lane.

In connection with consultation arrangements, Jean Cromar indicated that, in respect of the proposed changes to the number 4 service, there were no notices in the Arundel Gate and Pond Street Transport Interchanges, no leaflets were available concerning the changes and there were no notices on the buses travelling along the No. 4 route. She referred to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive’s (SYPTE) intention to hold a consultation meeting on 12^th July, 2012 and the requirement that objections to any proposed changes to bus services should be submitted by the 9^th July and asked whether the Council could ask the SYPTE about the consultation process, at the same time asking them to seek the withdrawal of the statement made by Councillor Anders Hanson that local Labour Councillors supported the withdrawal of the No. 4 service which, she alleged, was untrue.

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development) stated that the Council generally supported the Bus Partnership Agreement (BPA) as it believed that the Agreement would lead to improvements in the vast majority of bus services. He indicated that, under the BPA, some fares would reduce, access for people with disabilities would be improved and buses would generally be newer and therefore more reliable.

However, he acknowledged that there were disadvantages arising from the Agreement on some routes. All of the changes, though, had been the subject of agreement between the bus operators and the SYPTE. In terms of consultation, Councillor Bramall understood leaflets were available on the consultation on all buses, there were facilities which provided for on-line or telephone access to information and every bus should possess information notices concerning any proposed changes. Should there be any problems with the consultation process, then he would pass these on to the SYPTE. He added that he had not heard of any issues from other groups but he hoped that the consultation process should identify any problems, to which solutions should be sought. Local Labour Members, Councillors Hussain and Bond, had said to him that they were not satisfied with the proposed changes to the number 4 bus service.

Councillor Bramall indicated that he generally supported the BPA which would seek to address problem areas and the public’s views on these could be aired at the Sheffield On The Move consultation event to be held on 12^th July, 2012. However, he would raise the concerns now made at the meeting with the SYPTE.

(b) Public Question on Contract Profits

Mr Nigel Slack referred to a response given to his question at a meeting of the  Cabinet on 20^th June 2012, that the Council operates 537 contracts with 700 private companies and charities for the provision of 'public' services. This amounted to a total of some £730 million each year or 49% of the Council's annual budget. It was also made clear that, for the 'strategic' contracts, it was normal for these to include agreed profit margins as part of the contract terms. Examples were given of Capita at 10% and Veolia at 11%.

Mr Slack asked for the following information for all the agreed profit contracts: who are the 'Partner' private companies; how much is each contract worth per annum; and what is the agreed profit percentage on each; and when does each contract come up for renewal or renegotiation?

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) responded that it was difficult to provide a detailed answer to Mr Slack’s questions due to the confidential nature of some of the information, so he would answer them in the broadest sense with further detail being provided in writing to Mr Slack by Council officers as appropriate. He confirmed that the Council provided services in a number of ways, including in – house or through private companies and voluntary organisations through formal contracts and this had been the case over a number of years. Each contract was subject to a rigorous and open procurement process, through which, the Council aimed to secure high quality services, providing value for money. The contracts were subject to regular review and monitoring to help identify whether these aims were being met. He acknowledged the need for companies to make stipulated profits under Council contracts but stated that such contracts also brought service efficiencies and offered investment and innovation, for the benefit of the Council and service users.    

(c) Public Question on Highways Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

Mr Nigel Slack indicated that he had also attended the recent Central Community Assembly meeting where a presentation was given by Amey concerning the upcoming PFI contract for Sheffield's highways.

He was given to understand that this £80 million per annum (or £42,000 per Kilometre) contract was the result of a six year bidding and 'value for money' exercise, yet neither Amey nor the department representatives could advise him of the anticipated profit margin for this contract.

Mr Slack, therefore, asked did the Council really, less than two months from the anticipated start of this contract, have no indication of how much of our Council contribution will be ‘gobbled up’ by private company profits. If so, how can the department involved be certain of value for money? If not, what is the anticipated profit margin for this contract?

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) confirmed that the tendering/contractual process had taken approximately six years, with the funding for the contract having been awarded to the Council by the previous Government. The Council had agreed to increase its own investment in the Scheme to make up the reduction of the funding previously allocated by the Government. The commencement of the contract had been delayed and the contract had been subject to rigorous review and value for money investigations, by the Government and the Council. The scheme provided a huge investment in Sheffield and would bring quality outcomes for the City’s highways, including street lighting, signage and highway tree management. There was a recognised requirement to improve the City’s highways network to an acceptable standard and the PFI scheme, which was the largest in the Country, was the only realistic option for bringing about these improvements. The approach was supported by both of the largest political groups on the Council. 

Councillor Lodge added that some of the detailed information requested by Mr Slack was commercially sensitive, but that officers would supply Mr Slack with as much detail as the Council was able to. 

Order of Business

It was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, seconded by Councillor Simon Clement Jones, that the Council does now proceed to the consideration of item of business number 10 on the Summons concerning bus services.

On being put to the vote, the motion was negatived.