Agenda item

5.1

Mayoral Engagements/Events

5.1.1

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Colin Ross) reported that this day was the 75^th anniversary of the launch of the National Health Service (NHS) and, on behalf of the Council, he wished to acknowledge this achievement and place on record general appreciation for the NHS.

5.1.2

The Lord Mayor then reported on the visit on 27^th June 2023 by HRH The Prince of Wales to the Reach Up Youth Charity in the Burngreave area of the city, as part of his Homewards Programme, with Sheffield being one of only six places to benefit from the 5-year programme which aims to end homelessness in the UK.  He congratulated all those involved in the bid and in hosting this high profile visit for the city, and expressed particular thanks to Councillor Safiya Saeed for her contribution in the royal visit.

5.2

Petitions and Public Questions

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Colin Ross) reported that one petition was to be presented at the meeting and questions would be taken from six members of the public.  He stated that, in relation to questions, this would include two questions which had been received shortly after the published deadline for submission of petitions and questions for this meeting, where he proposed to use his discretion, as chair of the meeting, and permit the questions to be asked on this occasion. He added that a question from another member of the public had been received immediately prior to the meeting, but he had decided not to permit the question to be asked on this occasion due to its late receipt and instead had asked that an answer be provided to the questioner, in writing, after the meeting.

5.3

Petition Calling on the Council to Take Action on Migrant and Asylum Seeker Rights

The Council received an electronic petition containing 455 signatures, calling on the Council to take action on migrant and asylum seeker rights.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Manuchehr Maleki Dizaji.  Mr. Dizaji referred to the Notice of Motion which was to be considered later at the meeting covering issues relating to the right to work, stopping the Rwanda plan and anti-refugee laws, not passing information to the Home Office without the permission of the individual, and appointing a Migrant Champion, and he believed that, as the UK’s first City of Sanctuary, the Council had a duty to support the Motion.  He added, however, that in addition to supporting the Motion, the Council also needed to provide practical support and, working with South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group (SYMAAG), provide a long-term plan to support refugee and asylum seekers who were coming to the city in search of safety and sanctuary.

The petition was referred to Councillor Douglas Johnson (Chair of the Housing Policy Committee) to respond.  Councillor Johnson stated that he was pleased to say that the Council was able to agree to the petitioners’ request for a debate on migrant and asylum-seeker rights, and that this would happen under item 9 on the agenda for today’s meeting, which was to debate a Notice of Motion to reaffirm Sheffield as a city of sanctuary.  He added that, in view of the number of campaigners present in the public gallery to show interest in this matter, he proposed to make a request for the Council to bring the item up the agenda so it can be debated after the public questions have been dealt with.  Councillor Johnson acknowledged that the campaigners had done a great deal of work to design the Motion that was published on the agenda for debate at the meeting and he expressed thanks to the campaigners for that work.  He added that he was aware that the Motion had been intended as a cross-party motion and expressed disappointment that that was not the case, despite the prior involvement of individual members from the parties.  Councillor Johnson stated that the Green Group was the smallest group on the Council and get very few chances to submit a motion for debate by full Council over the course of the year, but had chosen to support this particular Motion because of the fundamental importance of treating everyone, and especially those who have been through the very worst of circumstances, with dignity and kindness.  Councillor Johnson commented that, in terms of the specific requests in the petition, he would ask other Members of the Council to endorse these in the vote to be held on the Motion, and in particular, he hoped to see the Council introduce a new Migrant Champion for the future.  He concluded his response by thanking the petitioners for bringing their petition and hoped that they find the debate of interest.

The Council noted the petition and response from Councillor Johnson.

5.4

Public Questions

Prior to inviting questioners to ask their questions, the Lord Mayor informed the meeting that public questions would be answered by the Leader of the Council where matters related to the city, or by the appropriate committee chair who would answer on behalf of their committee and not in a personal capacity.  He added that reference should not be made in public questions to specific named officers or specific named councillors or posts.

5.4.1

Question From Val Wilson

Val Wilson stated that in August she will have been living in her Council house for 50 years, having moved in on 23^rd August 1973, and she asked whether a plaque could be produced and installed at the property to state ’50 Years Val’s Bungalow’, and whether the Lord Mayor would unveil the plaque.

In response, Councillor Douglas Johnson (Chair of the Housing Policy Committee) stated that he would ask the relevant Ward Councillors to look into this matter for her.  The Lord Mayor added that in the event that a plaque was to be installed, he would be happy to unveil it.

5.4.2

Questions From Justin Buxton

Justin Buxton stated that, at the extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 10th May 2023 to 'Consider the implications of the Street Tree Inquiry on the city, SCC and councillors involved in the decision making at that time', the following resolution was passed -

‘[That the Council] believes that for individuals who were council cabinet members in the civic years 2015/16 to 2017/18, resignation from public office would be an appropriate indication of acceptance of responsibility for harms caused'.  He asked please could the Council explain how a councillor could be subsequently appointed to a public office when they were a member of the Cabinet identified in the resolution passed.

Mr. Buxton also asked do Councillors, and the Labour Councillors in particular, agree with the conclusion drawn in the following statement published by the Labour Police and Crime Commissioner, Alan Billings, when commenting on the street tree scandal subject to the Lowcock report - "It was also blown out of all proportion...", bearing in mind the huge financial and reputational cost incurred by South Yorkshire Police having been persistently misled by the Council?  Furthermore, will the Council publish the apology offered to South Yorkshire Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner?

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that, in relation to Mr. Buxton’s first question, all civic appointments and committee positions were agreed by Councillors at the Council’s Annual Meeting on May 17^th.

In response to Mr. Buxton’s next questions, Councillor Hunt reported that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s blog states that “the Sheffield Trees controversy was a traumatic time for the city of Sheffield, considerably damaging the reputation of the city council and upsetting many residents”. Councillor Hunt stated that he agreed with this and believed that the response to the street trees dispute has been proportionate. He added that it was right to commission Sir Mark Lowcock to undertake a full inquiry and his report sets out clear findings and recommendations that help to move us forward.  He reported that, at the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee meeting on June 19th, a report was unanimously endorsed that set out how the Council will act on all of the recommendations from the Sheffield Street Trees Inquiry. The Council aims to ensure that the lessons are learnt and that systematic change is made across the organisation to ensure that a dispute like this does not happen again. Councillor Hunt stated that, as the new Leader of the Council, he was committed to working with cross-party leaders, members and officers to make these changes happen, to rebuild trust, to change the culture of the organisation so that this doesn’t happen again and we move forward together.

In relation to the question regarding publication of the apologies offered to South Yorkshire Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner, Councillor Hunt stated that, as a point of principle, the Council wouldn’t automatically publish apologies to individuals or specific organisations, nevertheless this may be possible. As a matter of courtesy, the Council will need to ask South Yorkshire Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner whether they are willing for the apology to be published, and he stated that he will ask the Chief Executive’s office to make contact with them to ask that question.

5.4.3

Questions From Russell Johnson

Russell Johnson asked the following questions:-

1. (i) Does the new Labour and Council Leader agree with me that any assurances of a new and honest approach to governance have little credibility whilst six former Cabinet Members responsible for the shocking street tree debacle remain as Members?

(ii) Does Councillor Hunt understand that ignoring the powerful and clear motion passed at the extraordinary meeting of the Council regarding the position of those people further undermines the new regime’s legitimacy and claim of integrity?

2. (i) In view of the inadequacy of the now notorious apology recently issued, will the Leader publicly request apologies from former Elected Members implicated in the scandal?  And will he support the Chief Executive in doing the same regarding former Officers?

(ii) Following the national and local press and broadcast coverage of the grovelling apology, does the Leadership now understand that length is no substitute for completeness?

3. Why is the Council resisting the obvious step of commissioning an independent forensic financial audit of spending decisions (during the scandal and since) as one step in securing the rehabilitation of this ailing organisation? This would help to demonstrate true remorse and a genuine desire to learn from mistakes rather than conveniently using the welcome, though limited, Lowcock findings as a screen.

4. (i) In view of the excessive Officer and other costs, the waste of Members’ valuable time and the questionable origin and functioning of the Local Area Committee (LAC) structure, does the Leader agree that the LACs should be replaced with effective, less expensive mechanisms for involving a wide range of the citizenry in policy formation and decision-making?

(ii) Does the new Leader regret that the behaviours of some of his Councillors have been less than ideal at LAC meetings, clearly not assisting in the much-needed reputational uplift for the Labour Party in this city?

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that, at the extraordinary meeting of the Council on May 10th, we heard from Sir Mark Lowcock directly. Sir Mark offered us his view that he is sceptical of the value of relitigating things that happened in the dispute and cautioned that this is not likely to help us move forward.  Councillor Hunt stated that he agreed with that.  He added that having identified a number of lessons from the dispute, the task now was to learn from them and to look forward, and he referenced the meeting of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee held a couple of weeks ago which accepted all of the recommendations from the Sheffield Street Trees Inquiry and set out how the Council will act on all of those recommendations.  Councillor Hunt commented that, as the new Council Leader, he was now focused on that task and he expected that all elected members, in his party and from others, and all officers, understand the seriousness of what happened during the dispute and commit to work together to ensure a dispute of that magnitude can never happen again.

Councillor Hunt, in responding to questions 2(i) and (ii), stated that the Council has gone beyond the Inquiry recommendations on apologies by making direct apologies to organisations and groups and setting up a mechanism for individual apologies.  He added that the Council cannot compel either former Members or former officers to make apologies, and has been clear on this point throughout.

In relation to question 3, Councillor Hunt stated that, as the Council set out in its full response to the Sheffield Street Trees Inquiry on 19 June 2023, we have spoken to our auditors. This was in the context of the publication of the Inquiry report and the calls by Mr. Johnson himself, and others, for a public interest report.  He commented that the consideration of whether there needs to be a public interest report is a matter for the auditor, but if they want to understand the views of those who have suggested it, the Council will provide them with contact details.  Councillor Hunt added that the auditors have a statutory right of inspection and the Council fully engages with that process.  The Council has ensured that the auditor has the Inquiry’s report and they can take up any line of enquiry on spending that they think appropriate. He stated that the same principle will hold in terms of the call in the question for a forensic financial audit, which may or may not be the same as a public interest report.

Councillor Hunt responded to question 4(i) by stating that the question’s characterisation of the Local Area Committees was not one that he recognised.  He believed that LACs have been successful in bringing together communities with Elected Members and with local partners across the city, setting clear priorities for their areas through community plans and working to engage the public and communities in the issues that are most important to them in their localities, as well as making decisions and allocating funding at that level.  He added that, through the work of the Governance Committee, the Council was giving further consideration to how the LACs can be strengthened and empowered to support and champion communities across the city.

In relation to question 4(ii), Councillor Hunt stated that all Members were bound by the Councillor Code of Conduct, and added that if there are any potential breaches of that, then they can be investigated through the Council’s standards regime if a complaint is made.

5.4.4

Questions From Ruth Hubbard

Ruth Hubbard asked three questions, which were answered one at a time, as follows:-

Question 1. - It is five years ago last week that I had the pleasure and privilege of announcing in a press conference the end of strong leader governance, at the start of what would become the largest ever citizen mobilisation for governance change in the country.  As reported to Council, to date the transition has concentrated on “logistical and practical” considerations.  This approach was, in my view, deeply misconceived and really should be to this Council’s shame as governance change was wholly delivered by citizens who sought democratised local governance.  The transition process and review sought to exclude these considerations.  The legally required technical change is a better starting point but has failed to embed democratic value in the constitution, and to deliver against this.

At the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee I asked the Council Leader about these issues and he provided quite a long answer, a bit (or some) of which I agreed with. But, essentially, the ‘solution’ that he suggested is public engagement and involvement, which he stated is a priority over the next year.  A priority of public engagement doesn’t really have much to do with what I mean by democratising local governance and embedding or delivering democratic value.  It doesn’t really relate to the core citizens agenda on governance change collated from 20k citizen conversations that I, along with others, was charged with representing, and following through on, after the referendum on behalf of It’s Our City!

I see there have been significant changes to the membership of the Governance Committee.  Who can I talk to about the issues of democratising local governance and the kinds of things this actually means, including for the constitution?

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that Councillor Fran Belbin is the Chair of the Governance Committee and would be happy to meet with Ms. Hubbard to discuss the points raised, as would James Henderson, the Director of Policy and Democratic Engagement.  He added that the Governance Committee will be engaging with a range of local people and stakeholders as part of its task and finish work over the course of this year on public questions and on public involvement and engagement in the work and life of the Council.

Question 2. - At the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee I also told the Leader that groups of citizens and stakeholders are having informal discussions considering setting up a Sheffield, citizen-led, oversight and scrutiny (SOS) group or network.   I asked the Leader what encouragement or support he might want to offer to an independent scrutiny and oversight initiative.

He responded by saying he wants “to ensure all residents get the input into the decisions that affect them across all Council services; doing that will be a systematic process which we cannot cut short by endorsing any one group.”

I think the Leader misunderstood the point – this is about independent citizen-led scrutiny and oversight and obviously citizens and stakeholders can self-organise and take independent and collective action as they wish.  I was certainly not seeking some kind of Council permission or “endorsement”.  In fact it’s probably the other way round isn’t it - it is for citizens to ‘endorse’ and approve of, or not, what the Council is doing.

One of the main cultural, and democratic, challenges to this Council is not about the Council responding to what it itself owns, controls, defines, organises, or manages.  The cultural and democratic challenge is in many ways quite the opposite.  It is to respond differently to people organising outside the Council, independently, and who offer alternative viewpoints and agendas, expertise, and critique of what the Council is doing.  In fact it should also protect and promote independent voices.

To not understand that one big cultural and democratic challenge to respond differently to things that the Council is not in charge of, is to have not read the Lowcock report and understand how this Council created political enemies of tree campaigners, treated them with hostility, misrepresented and persecuted them and sought to crush them.  Other groups in the city have also experienced similar hostility.

Is the Council going to continue to treat with hostility those who offer independent and alternative viewpoints, experience, knowledge, expertise, and scrutiny and challenge?  What is it going to do differently from what it has done in the past to promote and protect independent and pluralist voices for our local democracy?

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that the Council was not seeking to treat anyone with hostility and he apologised if this is how its approach has been experienced.  He commented that the Council was genuinely committed to creating a more open, more transparent and a more different organisation in everything that it does; and that would represent learning the lessons from the Lowcock Inquiry.  He added that this would not just be limited to the Council’s formal governance and decision-making arrangements, but the Council will and must value different voices, views and opinions.  Councillor Hunt stated that the Council won’t always agree with those views and opinions - working in a representative democracy means that councillors will continue to be the decision-makers - but the Council wants those decisions to be based on the best available evidence, of every type.  He added that this will be achieved by listening to as wide a range of voices as we can, and that means promoting and protecting those voices and being a champion for a pluralistic society and a pluralistic democracy and to work with those voices.

Question 3. - My last question is about public questions, and in a way, it highlights an example of the failure to take seriously, and to deliver, democratic value in basic constitutional arrangements.

Since COVID the Council has gradually introduced more restrictions and hoops to jump through in order to ask and get public questions and responses on the record.   But who on earth can give up half a day – from work, children and caring responsibilities, pay money to get into town and so on, to be able to attend a meeting to ask a question? 

Yet all I see, again and again in Council reports, is that “citizens are at the heart of everything we do”.

Does no one in the Council notice these things, including obvious direct and indirect discrimination?  Recently several disabled people have contacted me and indicated that they simply cannot get to the Town Hall to exercise their democratic right.

Public questions is an extremely thin little right, a small thing, but they are currently the only thing in the governance architecture of the city that allows for direct citizen voice and getting something on public record.

I raised a myriad of issues to do with public questions in a question to the Governance Committee last October, including the discriminatory lack of access and also inconsistencies in practice, difficulties with responses and so on.  To be fair the Governance Committee has agreed they want to look at this.  But this is glacial.  Is it not the job of public servants to act with urgency when obvious issues of discrimination and exclusion are involved?  They appear to be barely, if at all, noticed, even when raised. 

I contrast this with the recent experience of asking a question at the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority Board.  They were surprised that I even thought I had to clear space and make my way down to attend in person.

Can I please ask for immediate action – starting today – to ensure that at the very least, reasonable adjustments are in place so that people who simply cannot get to Council meetings are not prevented from exercising their democratic right to ask a public question and get it on public record.

In response, Councillor Fran Belbin (Chair of the Governance Committee) thanked Ms. Hubbard for her questions and for her contribution to the Council’s governance review, and confirmed that, as mentioned earlier in the meeting by the Leader of the Council, she would be happy to meet with her to discuss the matters she has raised.

In relation to public questions at meetings, Councillor Belbin reported that the Governance Committee was in the process of establishing a task and finish group to review the Council’s approach to public questions, and she agreed that the facility for putting questions to the Council should not just be for those people with the time and ability to attend meetings.  She stated that the Council do make provision for written questions to be submitted and responded to publicly on the website, but agreed that this provision was not enough and the task and finish group would look specifically at how the public questions process can be further enhanced and greater access provided.  She believed that the review should draw upon the experience of those people who have asked questions and also from people who may have wanted to ask questions but who hadn’t done so for one reason or another, as well as learning from experience and best practice in other organisations, as suggested by Ms. Hubbard.

Councillor Belbin stated that she would keep Ms. Hubbard informed of the review work in its aim to improve the process, to create accessible opportunities and make sure the Council is as open, transparent and accountable as possible.

5.4.5

Question From Sam Gregory

Ruth Hubbard asked the following question on behalf of Sam Gregory - Urban Splash have announced plans to pave over a section of the garden at Park Hill to build new surface car parks. In the middle of a climate emergency, and in the face of enormous opposition from residents, are the Council prepared to let this company destroy well-used green space in one of the most deprived areas of Sheffield?

In response, Councillor Ben Miskell (Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) commented that Park Hill was an iconic development in the city and he was pleased to see that plans were in place to bring forward stage 4 of the project.  He stated that, due to the fact that the Council was dealing with a live planning application, he needed to refrain from making specific comments.  He reported, however, that he was aware that the Manor Castle Ward Councillors had met with Urban Splash, and had advocated for the greatest preservation of open spaces within the development.  He added that he looked forward to further collaboration with Urban Splash and local residents in the coming weeks and was open to scheduling a meeting on site to discuss the matter further with residents.

Councillor Miskell pointed out that, in his question, Mr. Gregory highlights the challenges posed by the climate emergency and Councillor Miskell stated that it was crucial that this was borne in mind when making decisions, especially regarding large-scale regeneration projects such as at Park Hill.

5.4.5

(NOTES: 1. The question which had been submitted by Julie Pearn, but which had not been asked at the meeting due to her absence, would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) and be published on the website; and

2. The Lord Mayor reported that questions had been received from Michael Mullin, who had indicated that he would not be present to ask them at the meeting.  The questions were on three topics which were non-ionising radiation risks, the street trees inquiry and “undemocratic”.  Answers to Mr. Mullin’s questions would be provided to him and be published on the Council’s website in due course, although there were several questions which, in accordance with his discretion as chair of the meeting, the Lord Mayor had decided shall not be permitted to be asked or answered. For the record, the questions that were ruled out of order, and the reasons for the ruling were as follows –

Questions Received Regarding Non-Ionising Radiation Risks

Although questions 1, 2 and 3 relate to questions that Mr Mullin asked at the Council meeting in February and have been substantively answered, they do ask further points about the technical detail and, as such, these will be responded to in writing following the meeting.

Question 4 will not be published or answered on the grounds that it relates to a named officer of the Council.  Although the question does not identify the officer by name and uses his job title instead, as the only officer with that job title, it is clear to whom the questioner is referring.

Questions Received Regarding the Street Trees Inquiry

All questions received, other than Question 10a, shall be provided with a written response.  However, some of the questions ask for information that will not be provided.

Question 10a will not be published or answered on the grounds that it relates to a matter not being within the responsibility of the City Council, namely the position of the Green Party.

Questions Received Regarding “Undemocratic”

Questions 1a, b, c and d will not be published or answered on the grounds that they relate to matters not being within the responsibility of the City Council, namely being specific to the Labour Party.

Question 2 will not be published or answered both on the grounds that it relates to named Members of the Council and because it relates to matters not being within the responsibility of the City Council, namely an internal matter within the Green Party.)