Agenda item

4.1

Communications

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Vickie Priestley) made a statement concerning the Council’s policy on the recording of its meetings, as follows:

“I wish to make a statement with regard to the Council’s policy on the recording of its meetings, as this matter has been the subject of publicity over recent weeks following the issuing of guidance by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.  The Council’s policy does permit the use of television cameras and recording equipment at the discretion of the Chair of the meeting, and this shall generally be permitted provided adequate notice has been given and convenient arrangements can be made.  No request for permission to record has been made for this meeting.  However, in the event that the public gallery is full, the proceedings of the meeting will be transmitted in audio format to the overspill area in the Reception Rooms to enable members of the public to hear the proceedings.”

The Council noted the statement and that a meeting of the Corporate Members’ Group would consider the matter further at its next meeting.

4.2

Petitions

(a)  Petition Opposing the Closure of The Meadows Nursery and Children’s Centre

The Council received a petition, containing 406 signatures, opposing the proposed closure of The Meadows Nursery and Children’s Centre.

On behalf of the petitioners, Lisa Stringfellow addressed the Council. She stated she was distressed to find that Meadows Nursery was closing. Her son had suspected autism and that it would be difficult to find another placement. She said that funding should be found to enable the nursery to continue. It was felt that the affected parents had been informed at the last moment. She suggested that Water Meadows School take on the management of the nursery.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families.  Councillor Drayton thanked the petitioners for bringing the matter to Council. She said that she was sorry that the circumstances were upsetting and that the questioner had only found out at short notice about a place which they thought was available to her son.

Action for Children felt unable to continue to run childcare at Meadows Nursery. The Council had been working with Water Meadows School to see whether it would be able to provide provision for 2 year olds. The School had decided that they would not be able to provide such a service. The Council was doing everything it could to make sure every child has a nursery place somewhere, although it was not able to promise a place at Meadows Nursery. The Council had to find a large amount of savings in early year’s provision as the Government had reduced the funding available. Services for the most vulnerable had been protected. However, it was not possible to provide funding for all childcare. The Council would continue to ensure places for early learning for children.  

(b)  Petition Regarding the HGV Ban on Bocking Lane

The Council received a petition containing 16 signatures regarding the consultation process relating to the proposed alterations to the HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) ban on Bocking Lane.

On behalf of the petitioners, Ken Newton addressed the Council. He stated that residents had been given 8 days’ notice in which to prepare a case concerning the alteration of the restrictions to HGV vehicles on Bocking Lane and he felt, therefore that people had received unfair treatment from the Council’s Cabinet Highways Committee. He was advised that the Committee decision could be called in through the scrutiny process, although local Councillors had not been able to meet the deadline to request such a call-in. Bocking Lane was a Class C road and 20,000 vehicles had been recorded in a 12 hour period. In relation to the restriction on HGVs, he asked if the Council would evaluate the operation of enforcement in two years’ time. He stated that he believed that the vast majority of residents were against the lifting of the restrictions on HGV’s.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development.  He stated that an indicative decision had been made 8 months’ ago and the relevant Traffic Regulation Order had also been made a considerable time before the 8 days to which the petitioners referred.

The issue had received scrutiny over a number of years and the matter had not been referred to the relevant scrutiny committee by the call-in process. Councillor Bramall stated that he understood that the petitioners might not be happy about the decision and acknowledged that it was a difficult decision for the Cabinet Highways Committee to make and one which had to balance different factors. The decision had to be made in the interests of all parties.

(c)  Petition Opposing the Closure of Don Valley Stadium

The Council received an electronic petition containing 1049 signatures, opposing the closure of Don Valley Stadium.

On behalf of the petitioners, Christina Wright addressed the Council. She referred to the decision to close the Stadium, which was the third largest athletics stadium in the United Kingdom. In taking away the facilities offered the by Stadium, there would be a reduction in accessibility and inspiration for sport. The Stadium was a unique facility and had grown to become a source of pride and home grown sporting talent. Although the Council needed to save money, it would also lose an opportunity to promote the City as a place for athletes to train. Further use of the facilities would also create income and it would be sad to miss out the opportunities which the Stadium presented.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure. Councillor Bowler stated that she agreed with the petitioner in relation to the special character of the City, which included places that were unusual and unexpected. The Don Valley Stadium was a great resource. However, there was a lack of major events coming to the Stadium, especially music events as event organisers preferred arenas and festivals. Some athletics events were going to other cities with new stadia, for example, London and Glasgow.

Sheffield did continue to attract events at the English Institute of Sport (EIS), Ponds Forge and the Arena, which were all driving activity through the City’s venues. As regards training, the EIS provided indoor facilities that were of an international standard. Woodburn Road Stadium would be re-opened with funding from Sport England and with the support of local athletics clubs. The closure of the Don Valley Stadium was in the context of the many significant savings which the Council was required to make and the alternative to closure of the Stadium included closure of several other facilities. She considered that most people would understand the closure of Don Valley Stadium in the context of other alternative savings and the alternative facilities at Woodburn Road.

Don Valley Stadium would also have needed capital expenditure. The Council was moving to facilities with lower levels of revenue support. £300K was to be invested in Woodburn Road, a facility which would cost £70K per annum to keep open and would be run on the Council’s behalf by an athletics club.

(d)  Petitions Opposing the Bedroom Tax

The Council received two petitions on the subject of the ‘bedroom tax’, as follows:

(i)            an electronic and paper petition containing 2194 signatures opposing the bedroom tax.

(ii)          an electronic petition containing 8 signatures opposing the bedroom tax.

In respect of the first petition, and on behalf of the petitioners, Gareth Lane addressed the Council. He stated that he believed the bedroom tax to be a ‘wicked and vindictive’ tax, which would affect the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community. He said that the austerity agenda was supported by all three of the major political parties. He referred to people having attended court hearings and having felt criminalised and threatened.

It was requested that the Council defend people by refusing to evict people and re-designating bedrooms and that councillors who wished to join the campaign by the benefits justice campaign would be welcome.

There was no speaker to the second petition.

The Council referred the petitions to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore. She thanked the petitioners and said that she understood that this was an emotive issue for people. She explained that Councillor Harry Harpham, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, had given his apologies for this meeting of the Council because he was at the Local Government Association, to attend a meeting concerning funding cuts to local government. Councillor Dore explained that a letter from 150 council leaders had been sent to the Government stating that local government could not sustain further funding cuts.

In relation to the bedroom tax, the Government had written to the Council, stating that it could not redesignate bedrooms and the consequence of such action would be a further reduction in funding. The rules relating to Housing Benefit were set by the Government and people claiming Housing Benefit had been told that, if they lived in a property with a spare bedroom, they could not claim benefit in respect of it. This included cases such as families whose son or daughter was in the armed forces and parents who looked after their children at home part of the time. Councillor Dore stated that the introduction of the bedroom tax would not actually save money and affected many people who were in work but on low incomes.

In reference to the issuing of court summons, Councillor Dore stated that summons had been issued but in respect of Council Tax.

Whilst it was not permitted to re-designate rooms, the Council was finding ways to make it easier for people who were affected by the changes to welfare. This included access to affordable finance and the use of funding set aside by the Council to support the recommendations of the Fairness Commission. The Council had challenged the Government about the bedroom tax and funding cuts to local government which it was believed were unnecessary. Other councils, including Conservative and Liberal Democrat authorities, were also challenging the cuts. However, the Deputy Prime Minister did not agree with the Council on these matters. Councillor Dore reiterated, this was Government policy.

(e) Petition Regarding the Youth Worker at Woodthorpe Youth Club

The Council received a petition containing 203 signatures and regarding the Youth Worker at Woodthorpe Youth Club.

On behalf of the petitioners, Chris Smedley addressed the Council. She stated that the Woodthorpe Youth Club has closed because there was not a Youth Worker. The worker concerned had been doing the job for many years, but it had been decided now that she was not qualified.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Councillor Drayton stated that she was aware that people locally felt strongly about the Youth Worker and Sheffield Futures had good words to say about her and in relation to her contribution to the Youth Club and the local community.

Sheffield Futures was a registered charity and the Council did not have a legal right to appoint or remove workers at Sheffield Futures. Councillor Drayton said that it was her understanding that the worker concerned did not want her personal circumstances brought into the public arena. It was also her understanding that the worker concerned was not removed or sacked, but that there had been a valid recruitment process.

The Club was closed at the present time because of the actions of some people in the community and the Council and Sheffield Futures were to work with young people who use the club to enable a proper programme to be in place and available for young people in the area.

(f)           Petition Objecting to the Lack of Car Parking Provision in Batemoor

The Council received a petition containing 196 signatures, objecting to the lack of car parking provision in Batemoor.

On behalf of the petitioners, David Hoad addressed the Council. He stated that currently parking in Batemoor presented a dangerous situation, especially for children and older people and the Tenants and Residents Association had been asked to press for improvements to parking provision. Mr Hoad made reference to a potential solution, in relation to which the Council and its highways provider partner Amey, had been made aware and asked that the Council listen to the wishes of local people regarding the provision of more parking.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall stated that he was not familiar with the scheme to which Mr Hoad referred. He outlined the process previously followed concerning highways schemes which went through the Community Assembly and a related assessment and prioritisation. He added that the funding available through the Local Transport Plan was limited. Councillor Bramall undertook to look at the situation outlined by the petition and to provide a written response to the petition.

(g)          Petition Requesting the Use of Land as a Children’s Play Area and/or Allotments

The Council received a petition containing 77 signatures and requesting the use of land backing onto 156 Warminster Road as a children’s play area and/or allotments.

On behalf of the petitioners, Glyn Hannan addressed the Council. He requested that the community be given permission to develop a piece of land which had been unused for 38 years and which backed onto 156 Warminster Road (Norton Hall residential home). The potential uses for the land included a children’s play area and allotments for people in the immediate area. At present, the City Council owned the land. There was concern at the present condition of the land, including the high incidence of dog fouling.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene. Councillor Scott stated that he was aware of the piece of land to which the petition referred and that Council officers were examining options, including the development of allotments, for which there was a high demand in the area. He agreed that the site was an asset and leaving it vacant was not a good use of the land. Councillor Scott confirmed that the Council would continue to work with the local community and the Tenants and Residents Association to develop options for the site.

(h)          Petition Regarding the Future of Ecclesall Library

The Council received a petition containing 52 signatures, regarding the future of Ecclesall Library.

On behalf of the petitioners, David Kirkham addressed the Council. He stated that Ecclesall Library was the best used branch library in the City and there was a need for the library service to be provided which was publically funded and with professional staff. He stated that libraries should not be handed over to trusts or cliques as it would remove them from the public interest and any potential failure would be the responsibility of the said trust.

The Council referred the petition to Council Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion.

(i)            Petition Opposing the Withdrawal of Funding from Community Libraries

The Council received a petition containing 504 signatures and opposing the proposed withdrawal of funding from community libraries.

On behalf of the petitioners, Chaz Lockett addressed the Council. He referred to the Council savings, which would lead to a cut in funding for 14 of the City’s libraries. He stated that the criteria upon which libraries would be judged were not yet known and there was concern about the process for the registration of expressions of interest in supporting the running of libraries.

He said there were reasons why people needed libraries and the knowledge which was available on the internet did not broaden the mind to the same extent as would reading a book. There were an array of events which took place in libraries and libraries were especially relevant to children and young people. One third of households did not have access to the internet and this proportion was seventy per cent for households in social housing. Libraries represented a vital service for internet access and information.

He believed that libraries could not be run by volunteers and that highly trained professional staff were required. He commented that staff in libraries had been told that they should not discuss funding cuts to libraries. He also stated that the Council and other Labour controlled local authorities should stand up for communities, especially those in the north of the Country, to oppose Government funding cuts.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion.

In response to both of the petitions submitted concerning libraries, Councillor Iqbal thanked the petitioners for presenting the petitions to the Council. He commented that he had met Mr Kirkham recently at an Ecclesall Forum event and had also met Mr Lockett. The Council had written to Government Ministers to highlight the unfairness of funding cuts and he also referred to the Fair Deal for Sheffield petition which had received over ten thousand signatures and to the funding cuts to the Council, which were unprecedented.

The Council wished to keep libraries in the City open, but the scale of funding cuts had led it to present a call for action to consider the future sustainability of libraries, working with the voluntary and business sectors and residents. 27 responses were received, 18 of which were from the voluntary sector, 6 from individual organisations, 2 from private organisations and 1 from a parish council.

There were 6,000 responses to consultation during the summer of 2012, which was designed to look at new ways of providing library services. Councillor Iqbal stated that a different model was needed in order to bring about a viable and sustainable library service and a further timetable in relation to the review would be confirmed in due course.

4.3

Public Questions

(a)          Public question concerning changes to benefits

Dawn Saunders asked: what was the Council doing about the number of smaller one or two bedroom properties available for people who were facing eviction from larger properties to avoid people being made homeless.

Shirley Frost asked, if the Coalition Government could not be trusted to protect the poor and vulnerable, who will? She referred to hearings in the Magistrates’ Court relating to Council Tax and to help she had given to people who were defending themselves against the Summons for Council Tax and she drew attention to people with health conditions, such as those with mental health needs, who were especially affected. She also asked the Council to consider issues including equalities, disability discrimination, its duty of care and the human consequences of changes to benefits. She requested a written answer to her question.

Lesley Boulton asked, in relation to the bedroom tax and Council Tax, was the Council intending to summons people and why were the public denied access to the Court?

Sue Wild asked why the Council was stating that, in relation to the bedroom tax, it would be illegal for it to oppose the Government. She stated that this was also the case in relation to the Poll Tax and people did go to prison at that time. She asked why the Council could not stand up and say that they will not introduce the tax.

Geoffrey Turner asked how does the Council’s policy of threats of eviction for some of the most disadvantaged people of Sheffield align with its Labour principles.

Jane Williamson asked how the Council could justify continuing to impose the bedroom tax on vulnerable tenants and stated that if people were evicted as a result, it would be the Council’s policy, rather than Government policy.

Paul Page asked, in relation to the non-payment of Council Tax, what made the Council issue summons to people who were already poor, to force them to travel into town, rather than look at each case individually.

Margaret Stone asked what estimates have the Council made of the number of people who are likely to be evicted from their council house due to the bedroom tax and the reduction in Council Tax Benefit and cuts to other benefits. She referred particularly to the effect on children, people with poor mental health and people who are mentally or physically disabled. She asked what does the Council expect to do to help those people.

Rob Lowe referred to the past campaigning in opposition to the Poll Tax and said if people stood up, it could make a difference and that was precisely what the Council’s Labour Group should be doing. He stated that the Council should follow the example of Leeds City Council and try to re-classify bedrooms. He stated that the bedroom tax contravened the European Convention on Human Rights and this should be explored and the tax challenged on this basis. He stated that the only way to stop poverty was to adopt socialism.

In response, Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that she had been part of the campaign relating to opposition to the Poll Tax, like many of her colleagues. The Poll Tax affected everybody and the campaign against it was effective. In contrast, the bedroom tax affected only a comparatively small number of people. The Government was hitting the poorest people and those who were least able to fight back themselves.

The law had changed as well and, if the Council did not set a balanced budget, the Chief Executive would take over and Whitehall would do the work on the Council’s behalf relating to the budget.

Councillor Dore stated that the policy of the bedroom tax was a Government decision, which the Council could not overturn. The Council had previously received petitions and representations relating to Don Valley Stadium, libraries, youth work and childcare and there was concern that there would not be enough funding available to protect older and disabled people. The Council was trying to support people through the Social Fund; discretionary housing payments; the Council Tax Support fund; and initiatives funded by money set aside to implement the recommendations of the Fairness Commission, including affordable finance and extension of the credit union to enable access to money. The Council had made 300 opportunities available for young people without level 2 qualifications through the apprenticeship programme and it had introduced a living wage for City Council employees.

The Council had to work with Government Ministers and recently a Minister had come to Sheffield to discuss issues including the Work Programme, which, at the present time was not working effectively; and advice services.

Councillor Dore stated that the Council did oppose the cuts to its funding and pointed out that people’s vote did count and they would have an opportunity to vote in the General Election in 2015.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that 35,000 people in the City would be required to pay Council Tax this year for the first time. Reminders had been sent out and Council officers had worked with people who were affected by the changes. A Hardship Fund had been set up and the Council was not pursuing people who had applied for access to the fund and would continue to support people.

The Council needed to collect Council Tax and the Government was not providing a transitional payment this year. All local authorities were in the same position and this was a Government policy decision. The Council had developed a scheme relating to Council Tax which looked forward. 6,000 people faced summons and on the day of their hearing, some people spoke with Council officers to resolve the matter. The issues concerning public access to the Magistrates’ Court were a matter for the Court, although Councillor Lodge stated that he was enquiring with the Court in relation to the issue.

(b)          Public questions concerning blacklisting by construction companies

Peter Davies asked if the Council agreed that companies such as Chrillion should have no part to play in public sector contracts when they are clearly guilty of blacklisting.

Simon Ray asked what guarantee the Council could give that it will not associate with blacklisting companies.

Mark Hudson asked if the Council would make a public statement regarding blacklisting.

Peter Shaw referred to a blacklisted construction worker who had to seek employment outside of the country as an electrical engineer. He stated that Kier had also blacklisted people in the United Kingdom. He also stated that Unite was campaigning against the practice of blacklisting, which affects people’s lives and should be put to an end.

In response, Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that there was a Notice of Motion on the Council agenda relating to blacklisting. She said that the Council did not wish to be associated with blacklisting and that it was an unlawful practice. She confirmed that the Council did not wish to participate with contractors that practice anything which was unlawful. Councillor Dore stated that the Council had asked the Government to intervene in relation to blacklisting and had also written to local contractors. She also referred to a tripartite meeting, including the Council, contractors and trade unions, to ascertain that contractors did not carry out blacklisting. She called upon the Government to follow the Council’s example on this issue.

(c)          Public question concerning Libraries

Bridget Culbert asked when communities will found out about the expressions of interest in relation to the future of libraries given that this will affect the provision of the service and whether this issue should have been subject to full discussion earlier. 

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, stated that there had been 27 responses in all to the invitation for expressions of interest in relation to the future of libraries. However, there was some sensitivity in relation to the negotiations that were taking place and further information could not be made available at this time. When further details were published, the list of the 27 organisations or individuals would be included within it.

(d)          Public question concerning Remploy and Sharrow Industries

James Stribley asked whether the Council would agree that procurement tenders should include a paragraph stating that “bids should consider the Council’s commitment to assisting Remploy and Sharrow Industries vulnerable workers”

He stated that this would assist workers in finding worthwhile paid employment. Bidders should evidence how they could assist the Council in this goal of securing employment and support for vulnerable workers.

In response, Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that the Council was looking at this issue and he agreed that it was right that the Council should try to include the wording as suggested by the question in the paragraph above. He stated that this would be implemented and included in tender documents.

(e)          Public question concerning the living wage

Peter Davies stated that it was nearly one year since the City Council discussed the implementation of the living wage agreement and, so far, only one of the Council’s partners, Amey, had agreed to implement the living wage and other partners had not. He asked what the Council was going to do.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources stated that there were a number of partners that had not implemented the living wage and that some contracts were subject to a re-tendering process, including services run by Kier Asset Partnership and homecare provision. He stated that a meeting was to be held which would include Council officers and trade unions to consider the re- tendering of contracts and consideration was to be given in relation to including references to the living wage within tender documentation.

(f)           Public Question concerning the Children and Families Bill

Adam Butcher asked, with reference to the Children and Families Bill, what the impact would be on the position of people with a disability or those with special educational needs.

In response, Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that she had asked Council officers to provide her with a briefing in connection with the Children and Families Bill, and especially concerning the issues affecting young people with special educational needs. The Council had provided a response in relation to the Green Paper. Councillor Drayton stated that she would write to the questioner with further information.

(g)          Public question concerning Judicial Review of Children’s Centres

Hannah Gibbins asked how the decision in the High Court to go ahead with a full Judicial Review would impact upon the impending closure of Children’s Centres and employee reductions in Children’s Centres and Early Years’ Services across the City.

In response, Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that the Council intended to fully defend the application for Judicial Review in this case and it was important that the Council plans could proceed. At present, there was nothing legally which prevented the Council from implementing the decision. A report updating Members would be presented to the Children, Young People and Families Scrutiny Committee on 4 July 2013. The Council was continuing monitor and support those organisations involved and affected by the Government budget cuts and also continuing to ensure that it fulfilled its statutory duties.

(h)          Public question concerning Sustainable Communities Act

Vicky Seddon stated that Sheffield had committed itself to take part in the next process of the Sustainable Communities Act and was one of the first councils to do so, with cross party support. Last time, the Council used the Citizen’s Panel as a mechanism to agree with people what proposals to make. She asked what process and formula would be used this time and had any decisions been made already on what suggestions would be put into the process.

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, stated that the Sustainable Communities Act provided a way of challenging barriers that have an impact on local communities. The work previously undertaken relating to the Act was resource intensive in terms of the process which generated proposals to submit to the Government. However, the Council had lost 1,200 staff over the past 2 years and more staff would be lost this year. The Council therefore had to be realistic in relation to the second round of the Sustainable Communities Act. A Cabinet report would be produced, which would consider both the benefits and resources required.

(i)            Public question concerning Burngreave New Deal for Communities and South Yorkshire Trading Standards

Martin Brighton referred to instances of incidents that had been years in the making, for example, the ‘missing millions’ of Burngreave New Deal for Communities or the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit. He asked what would the response be should an independent observer comment that the [Council’s] current Chief Executive officer was handed a ‘poisoned chalice’?

In response, Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that Mr Brighton had made an assertion regarding ‘missing millions’ and the Burngreave New Deal for Communities and the Chief Executive would have to answer for himself whether he thought he had been handed a ‘poisoned challice’ as Mr Brighton had referred to it.

(j)            Public questions concerning city centre shopping

Martin Brighton referred to Sheffield having dropped out of the top fifty places in the Country for having a good city centre shopping experience, to 63^rd place. He asked, to what extent would the Council say this situation was a legacy of a decade ago?

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, stated that it was disappointing that the City had dropped down the table in terms of the range of retail to which Mr Brighton referred. In terms of actual spend in the City Centre, Sheffield was in 27^th place. He stated that Council was working to achieve improvements.

Councillor Bramall stated that he assumed the question was referring to the development of a retail quarter in the City Centre, which, he believed was the right thing to do for the City Centre. However, there had been a number of factors which contributed to delays, including the high number of small properties which had to be assimilated in to the site, associated planning applications, the global economic crisis and the cancellation of the grant for the scheme by the Government. The economic crisis was a main factor.

However, developments were moving forward, for example on the Moor, which was leading to significant improvement and the situation relating to the New Retail Quarter was close to a resolution and the Council was committed to deliver a scheme, either though the developer Hammersons or in another way.

(k)          Public questions concerning policy and procedure relating to reported abuse of adults

Martin Brighton made reference to the Council’s policy and procedure for dealing with reported abuse of adults. He asked for an explanation of how the procedure is circulated to all elected Members and officers; how the procedure is applied and its use monitored and how errant officers or elected members are brought into line.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living responded that the procedures for dealing with reported abuse of adults were available on the Council’s website and on its intranet and included awareness for employees who were in regular contact with vulnerable adults. Training was available to Councillors regarding the application of safeguarding procedures in conjunction with Sheffield’s Safeguarding Office.

A report on the operation of these procedures was submitted to the Healthier Communities and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee and individual cases were monitored through the Safeguarding Office and the Safeguarding Partnership Board, which was the responsible body. Councillor Lea stated that she was a member of the Partnership Board. If Members or officers did not adhere to the policy and procedure, they were subject to actions ranging from and including awareness training, and examination of their support needs. It was also a potential disciplinary issue within the conduct and disciplinary procedures of the City Council

(l)            Public question concerning accountability

Martin Brighton stated that, last month, a question was asked about how officers and elected Members are held to account for repeated and costly mistakes. The politicians answer, quite reasonably, was that accountability was by the ballot box. However, he stated, if costly mistakes are repeatedly being made, leadership is called for, and the errant officers and elected members need timely correction so as to prevent further losses to the taxpayer. He asked, how is this achieved.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council responded that, previously, conduct was a matter for the Standards Board for England and local Standards Committee and that the Council also now had a complaints process through which Councillor could be called to account in relation to their conduct. The Council also had a complaints procedure and a disciplinary and supervisory process.

(m)         Public question concerning sanctions

Martin Brighton stated that, if a citizen makes untrue statements about an elected member or an officer, that citizen is rightly rebuked by the Council, with threat of sanctions. He asked, what are the sanctions applied to elected members or officers who make untrue statements about a citizen?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council responded that sanctions were applied in accordance with the procedures referred to above and depending upon the level and severity of matter.

(n)          Public question concerning licensing charges

Martin Brighton asked: what is the Council’s estimate of the extent of its exposure to financial compensation to local businesses consequent upon the recent court case showing that local authorities have been overcharging for alcohol and other licences.

Councillor Isobel Bowler, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, responded that an article had been published in the Sheffield Star concerning Westminster Council and that it was unlawful for a local authority to make a profit from charges applied to licensing. Fees could pay for the costs of licensing, including enforcement. Westminster Council were reported as having failed to discharge this responsibility correctly. Most local authorities, it was suggested, were not like the case of Westminster, where there were particular circumstances and difficulties. The advice from the Council’s legal and licensing officers was that the Council would be able to defend its position in relation to licensing fees.

(o)          Public questions concerning outsourcing

Nigel Slack referred to two questions which he had asked at a meeting of the Council’s Cabinet on 19 June 2013 and to concerns that the responses made by respective Cabinet Members were at least uninformative and at worst patronising and belittling. He stated that he was not satisfied with the tone and quality of the responses given.

Mr Slack gave further detail of the issues he raised and what he was hoping for from the responses. Firstly, in relation to Amey:

·           The two articles he referred to quoted a letter from Amey to some of their staff.

·           Was this letter sent out?

·           Does it quote potential losses in the first year of £540,000?

·           Why do this level of losses imply a “major financial risk” and what does that mean for the project and the city?

·           Will the redeployment of 22 staff be local or will they be offered jobs away from the area to encourage voluntary redundancy, thereby avoiding the taint of compulsory redundancy?

Secondly, in relation to Capita:

·           Are they busting their profit cap of 10%? Open book accounting should enable you to know this.

·           Since the company’s accounts clearly show a disconnect between the rewards for front line and senior management, is this company ethically suitable to hold any future contracts with this City?

·           If you are unsure about what is ethically acceptable in this arena, should you be starting a discussion on a policy decision that you all agree on and that will also give the public confidence?

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, responded that he was sorry that Mr Slack did not feel that the questions which he had submitted had been answered. He stated that it would be normal to assume that losses made in the early years of a contract would be made up in later years. Importantly, the outcomes that the Council purchased would not be affected. The City Council would carry the risks if Amey were not to carry the risk. Every month, Amey had replaced 1000 street lights, whereas previously, Streetforce had replaced 200 each year.

There were positive relationships with staff and the scale of the work being undertaken in the Streets Ahead project meant there had been no compulsory redundancies. The work had created 30 apprenticeships, 230 jobs and a further 500 jobs as part of the supply chain. Councillor Scott stated that he was proud of the work being undertaken.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated with regard to information concerning the turnover and profit of Capita, he believed that a factual response was provided to Mr Slack’s questions to Cabinet on 19 June. The profit which Capita made in relation to Sheffield did not exceed the 10 per cent margin, to which he had referred. In relation to ethical conduct, it could be argued that Capita had higher standards than some other companies. The Council had a process for tendering and criteria upon which submitted tenders would be judged. The Council could look at providers who potentially offered improved remuneration to front line staff, for example. However, it had to consider contacts as a whole and in terms of what was best for Sheffield.

(p)          Public question concerning Jessops Edwardian Wing

Nigel Slack asked whether the Council was represented at the recent High Court hearing to decide on the potential Judicial Review concerning the planning decision to demolish the Grade 2 listed building known as the Jessops Edwardian Wing? If so how many of the 5 Barristers that appeared for the defendants were paid for by the Council and what did it cost?

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, stated that with regard to the application for Judicial Review of the decision concerning the Jessops Edwardian Wing, the Council had employed the services of a Queen’s Counsel and a more junior representative. He understood the decision of the Court was to be appealed. At this time, he did not have the precise costs of representation. The costs which would be awarded to the Council amounted to £5000, which was the maximum and this reflected the initial ruling of the Judge that the planning application process was both proper and appropriate. If the Council made a decision and it is challenged, it is right that it is able to defend itself. Councillor Bramall stated that the Council would await the outcome of the appeal.

(q)          Public question concerning Food Safety

Nigel Slack referred to a recent report on Channel 4 News that the Government has turned the sale of Bovine Tuberculosis contaminated meat into a near 30,000 carcass per year industry. He asked if the Council had enquired of its catering contractors whether they use such contaminated meat in schools or residential homes, or what assurances it had received that they do not.

Councillor Jack Scott Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, responded that the Council had investigated all food providers and the Red Tractor providers of food for schools in particular. Trading Standards checked supplies of meat.  The Food Standards Agency, with which the Council had regular contact, had requested the Council to conduct specific tests and a range of other testing was carried out by the Council’s Trading Standards and Food Safety Teams. In schools, the Council had suspended the serving of burgers and other meats as a precaution. In relation to food quality, the Council was to look again at the City’s Food Plan.