Agenda item

3.1

Communications

Recording and Filming of Council Meetings

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Vickie Priestley) made a statement to Council concerning the recording and filming of Council meetings. She stated that the Council will be asked later at this meeting to approve changes to Procedure Rules within its Constitution to clarify the arrangements by which recording of the Authority’s meetings will be facilitated under the direction of the Chairs of the meetings.

These changes will make it clear that photography, video and sound recording of the proceedings of meetings whilst open to the public shall be permitted under the direction of the Chair of the meeting and in accordance with any protocols and guidance issued by the Council’s Monitoring Officer. The Chair has discretion to withdraw or suspend this permission should he or she deem it necessary, for example if the recording is disrupting the conduct of the meeting, or where a member of the public participating in a meeting objects to being recorded. In order to assist the Chair to manage the recording of the meeting, any member of the public wishing to record must inform the Chair and the recording must be clearly visible.

3.2

Petitions

(a)  Petition Regarding the Former Public Convenience on Haggstones Road, Worrall

The Council received a petition containing 309 signatures and requesting action with regard to the former public convenience on Haggstones Road, Worrall.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Ray Battye. Mr Battye, Chairman of the Worrall Environmental Group, stated that the site of the former public conveniences on Haggstones Lane, Worrall, had been in a state of development since 2005 when the conveniences were demolished. Planning permission was granted for a shop in 2008 and building work began, and then stopped after 18 months. What was currently in place was a half completed construction, surrounded by metal fencing, which was unattractive and detracts from the appearance of the Village. Despite assurances from the owner in September 2012, that building would recommence, no such work had taken place. The matter had been on the Environmental Group’s agenda for a considerable time and the Group decided to organise the petition, which had been signed by about one quarter of the people in Worrall.

He stated that it was significant that, in July 2014, the route of the Tour de France would pass through Worrall and the images of this (at present) unattractive site could be broadcast across international media. There was an opportunity to help to make the site complete by the time of that event in 2014. The petition asked the Council to do whatever it could to ensure that the site was not detrimental to the well kempt village of Worrall and the wider area both during and after the Tour de France.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall stated that there were legal timescales for the completion of developments following the granting of planning permission. He said that he was delighted that the Tour de France would be coming to this area in 2014. He would examine the matters raised in the petition and would respond to the petitioners. 

(b)  Petition Objecting to Selective Licensing in the Page Hall and Fir Vale Area

The Council received a petition containing 725 signatures and objecting to selective licensing in the Page Hall and Fir Vale area.

On behalf of the petitioners, Ahsan Ashraf addressed the Council. He stated that the petitioners did not support the proposals for the introduction of selective licensing the in the Page Hall and Fir Vale area. Such a scheme did not deal with the problems in the area which included anti-social behaviour and litter. It was proposed instead that existing legislation be more effectively enforced. People wanted immediate action, rather than waiting for a selective licensing scheme, which would take time to implement. Interim Management Orders were required to deal with anti-social behaviour and Empty Dwelling Management Orders should be issued to address the 134 empty properties, representing 6.7 per cent of properties which needed to be put back into use. The Council should also use existing powers to deal with overcrowding in some properties and to bring about more timely eviction of tenants, where appropriate.

Mr Ashraf referred to the introduction of a selective licensing scheme in Salford, which was not considered to have been effective as, for a cost of £240K it had addressed problems only in relation to a few bad landlords.

He referred to some positive examples of other local authorities, including Leicester and Lewisham, which had incentivised landlords to house good tenants in properties. He also made reference to alternative approaches and to the measures within Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill 2013.

Mr Ashraf stated that people did not want a selective licensing approach which adversely affected good landlords and tenants and which also led to an increase in homelessness. He also expressed concern at the cost of consultation relating to selective licensing, which had so far cost £32K. He also made reference to fighting in a consultation meeting and tensions, which represented a problem with the way in which the consultation had been undertaken.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council. Councillor Dore explained that Councillor Harry Harpham, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods had given apologies for the meeting today and he would normally have responded to the petitioners on these matters.

Councillor Dore stated that she accepted that this was an emotive issue. She had not been involved directly with this particular consultation process, which was designed to bring out and respond to the type of issues that people had identified. She emphasised that Selective Licensing was only one option to respond to the range of problems which the petition had outlined. Other engagement meetings had also taken place with residents, tenants and landlords as part of the consultation process. All points of view, including those raised by the petition submitted at this meeting, would be collected and taken into account. It was clear that people wanted matters to be addressed.

The Council will also look at examples of best practice elsewhere and assessment of how effective this had been. Councillor Dore stated that a response would be made to the range of issues raised in the petition.

(c)  Petition Objecting to the Threat of Library Closures in the Ecclesfield Parish

The Council received a petition containing 173 signatures and objecting to the threat of library closures in the Ecclesfield Parish.

On behalf of the petitioners, Vic Bowden addressed the Council and stated that most of the signatures to the petition had been those of people in the parish of Ecclesfield. She stated that people were angry at the prospect of losing Ecclesfield and Chapeltown Libraries. Libraries provided services which supported people’s mental wellbeing. The petition asked the Council to continue to maintain library services, which was a question of priorities.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion. Councillor Iqbal made reference to the disproportionate level of Government funding cuts, the results of which the Council had to manage. Up to 14 libraries were at risk. Consultation had taken place in the summer of 2012 and a call for action had commenced in February 2013, and had been delayed because of the late announcement by the Government of the spending review. Whilst no decision had yet been made as regards proposals for libraries, these would be published within the next fortnight.

(d)  Petition Requesting a Reduction in the Speed Limit Outside Ecclesfield Secondary School

The Council received a petition containing 411 signatures, requesting a reduction in the speed limit outside Ecclesfield Secondary School.

On behalf of the petitioners, Colin Taylor addressed the Council. He stated that each year, 3 pupils at Ecclesfield School were involved in road accidents. He had campaigned in relation to road safety in the area for some time and a crossing had been installed through the Northern Community Assembly. A recent fatality had led to a delay in the introduction of a speed limit until after the outcome of the inquest was known. He stated that he had asked Councillor Weatherall, previously the Chair of the Community Assembly, about the inclusion of a 30 mph speed limit in the Streets Ahead Programme and Councillor Joyce Wright had been quoted as saying that speed was a matter for the police.

Mr Taylor said that it was not appropriate to have a 40mph speed limit outside a school, and the speed limit should be reduced as a matter of urgency to protect the safety of young people. He commented that he was pleased that 20 mph limits were introduced elsewhere in the City.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall stated that the amount of investment in the enforcement of school zag-zag and school entrance schemes had doubled and 20 mph zones were being introduced in the City. He stated that Councillor Weatherall had discussed with him the issue of road safety at Ecclesall School and with a view to reducing the speed limit outside the School and in relation to work with the North Sheffield Youth Forum. A feasibility study had been carried out to examine a reduction in the speed limit and there was a good case for something to be done. Subject to affordability, the Council was looking to fund such a scheme.

(e)  Petition Requesting Enforcement of the 20 mph Speed Limit in Shiregreen

The Council received a petition containing 60 signatures, requesting enforcement of the 20 mph speed limit in Shiregreen.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall stated that there was a 20 mph speed limit already in place in Shiregreen and he expected that enforcement of the speed limit was the actual matter of concern. A response in writing would be made to the petitioners.

3.3

Public Questions

(a)  Public question concerning Government Austerity Programme

Geoffrey Turner made reference to the recent Fair Deal for Sheffield campaign and the Council’s criticism of the Government’s austerity policies and the effects of budget cuts on Sheffield. He asked whether the Council would support and publicise an anti-austerity event to be held on 14 September, hosted by the Sheffield People’s Assembly; and would it encourage elected Members to attend. 

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that she did support any challenge to the Government in respect of the cuts being made, particularly in relation to Sheffield. She asked Mr Turner to let her have details of the event, to enable her to make sure it was in line with Council policy. A Council Motion had previously been passed in support of the Fair Deal for Sheffield campaign and she stated that she especially supported that part of the event on 14 September 2013 at which the Cabinet Member, Councillor Jack Scott was a speaker.

(b)  Public Question concerning Benefits and the Residency Test

Mr B O’Malley stated that the Council needed to follow up with the Home Office, UK Border Agency and Housing Benefit Department to see who is entitled to move from one EU country to another and claim benefits. He referred to the habitual residence test for people wishing to reside in the UK and he made reference to the need for people to prove they could actively support themselves. In Page Hall, he stated, the application of the residency test was in question.

In response, Councillor, the Leader of the Council, Julie Dore, stated that she would ask the questioner to identify where this may be an issue and the Council would then follow it up.

(c)  Public Questions Concerning Burning of Waste in Firvale and dumping of household waste in Page Hall

Leslie Miller stated that he was concerned about the burning of rubbish by people in Firvale and to fires which people were having during and night and day which produced toxic fumes and affected people living nearby and which he was concerned were dangerous.

Shaun Outram spoke concerning litter and the dumping of household items of rubbish in Page Hall. He stated that a big clean-up had taken place in Page Hall on 3 July and he commented that the Council and local people had done a brilliant job in clearing up the area. However, there were still some households who were dumping rubbish. Photographs of the situation had been passed to a local Councillor. He said that CCTV had been promised to help enforcement, although it was not yet installed. He stated it was like living in a landfill site.

In response to both questions, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, Councillor Jack Scott, stated that fires were permitted in people’s backyards, so long as they did not cause a nuisance. The Council wanted to make sure that people disposed of waste properly. He also made reference to the successful week of action in July, which took place in Page Hall. The Council could not promise to reinstate weekly bin collections. However, Councillor Scott stated that he was especially concerned about dangers presented by fires and would like to arrange a meeting with City Councillors, and representatives from the South Yorkshire Police and the Fire and Rescue, to look at concerns in relation to safety and pollution and to make sure that people understood the risks relating to fire. 

Councillor Scott said that he was pleased at the achievements during the week of action in Page Hall and the 120 local people who helped during the clean-up. He agreed that the week of action was only a first step and community and education work would need to continue. Enforcement also needed to be increased and tougher action taken, where necessary. CCTV was to be installed next week and Councillor Scott apologised for the delay. Uniform and plain clothes officers were undertaking enforcement work. It was important to keep the community engagement work going and use intelligence from local people to assist enforcement so that the area could be kept clean.

(d)  Public Question Concerning Labour Party Trade Union Funding

Christopher Bains made reference to the Labour Party’s potential loss of funding from the GMB trade union and asked whether the Council agreed that the Leader of the Labour Party, Rt Hon Ed Milliband, had “shot himself in the foot” in relation to trades union funding.

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that she was not a member of the GMB but was a member of the Unite trades union and she was more than happy to be affiliated with the Labour Party as, she believed, it was the only political party which fought on behalf of decent hard working people.

(e)  Public Question Concerning Safeguarding Children in Page Hall Area

Bernadette Biggin referred to toddlers and young children from the migrant community in the Page Hall area, who she was concerned had little clothing and were begging and asking for money and might be at risk of harm. She asked why social services had not become involved in the situation. She also made reference to safeguarding legislation which was designed to protect children and ensure that children were growing up in a safe environment, with the best outcomes and protected from harm. She asked what agencies were doing to safeguard these children.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, Councillor Jackie Drayton, thanked Bernadette Biggin for her question and said that she appreciated her concern and that of residents of Page Hall.

The safeguarding of all our children is really important and was absolutely vital. The City Council was committed to ensuring that children and young people in the City achieve their full potential and are safe and healthy and it would do everything possible to protect them from harm.

Councillor Drayton said that there was a lot of general work going on in the Page Hall area by agencies, including Multi Agency Support Teams (MAST), specialist health visitors, the Missing from Education Team, Sheffield Futures and youth services, Police Community Support Services and South Yorkshire Police, the Pakistani Advice Association and local community workers.

Specifically, a parenting course was to be held at the Pakistani Advice Community Association to help parents to understand their responsibilities in relation to children and including road safety, safeguarding and food. The local authority had a statutory responsibility to investigate any child protection issues that are reported and needed to obtain specific details and evidence, if social workers were to be asked to be involved. The information could be given anonymously and in confidence, either to workers at the Pakistani Advice Community Association or directly to the MAST team and, once that had happened, a social worker assessment of the family concerned could be undertaken and action could be taken to support the child.

(f)   Public Question Concerning Section 30 Order in Page Hall

Jane Howarth referred to groups of youths and adults who were congregating in the Page Hall area, which she stated, caused people to feel intimidated at all times of the day. Older people especially were afraid to leave their houses. Members of the groups were believed to be under the influence of alcohol and nuisance behaviour included, urinating in public and dropping items of litter including cans and bottles. A Section 30 Order was in place in the area, but was ineffective at night and something also needed to be done during the daytime. She asked why the Police were not dispersing adults and youths in gangs of 20, 30 or more and stated that the curfew was not being enforced.

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, responded that the Police were responsible for the enforcement of the Section 30 Order which was in place in the Page Hall area. Work was taking place with local councillors and Rt Hon David Blunkett MP. This was the second occasion on which a Section 30 Order has been introduced in the area. The Police and communities were meeting on 5^th September in relation to the issues facing the area. People were invited to attend.

The police were not able to move people on if they are not committing anti-social behaviour. After 9.30pm, the Police did have powers to take young people home.

Councillor Iqbal said that he had walked around Fir Vale and in speaking to people in the area, had heard mixed messages concerning the effectiveness of the Section 30 Order. He requested that people report incidents to the 101 telephone number so that as much evidence and intelligence could be gathered as possible. He stated that he would speak with the police concerning the matters which had been raised and ask them to respond.

(g)  Public Questions Concerning the Libraries Review

Thomas Barstow asked when would a copy be made available of the proposals from the Library Review, as originally promised on 20 July 2013 and which of the Council’s Scrutiny Committees would consider this as part of its work programme?

Colin Taylor asked is there a secret list of threatened libraries that has been shared with parish councillors. He also referred to Councillor Mazher Iqbal stating on Radio Sheffield on 3 September, that he would let people know which libraries are under threat within the next two weeks. He asked, why cannot this be announced today, as others were obviously in the know.

The Cabinet Member for Communities, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, responded, that the information concerning the Libraries Review would be made available within the next two weeks. The Council had made a commitment to provide a comprehensive, modern and affordable library service. The relevant Scrutiny Committee was the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee and people would be informed if the matter was called-in for scrutiny. The issues facing libraries were not unique to Sheffield and some 200 libraries had been closed in the country. The funding for the Libraries service was affected by the cuts in Government funding to local authorities.

(h)  Public Questions Concerning Bedroom Tax

Brian Hanson asked how people could be expected to pay the bedroom tax from the £102 that he had available each week, which was more than the mount some people received because he had a disability, on top of all other bills.

Gareth Lane stated that the Labour Party had promised to scrap the bedroom tax if was elected to Government. He asked whether the City Council would pledge not to evict people who fell into arrears because of the bedroom tax.

Margaret Stone asked if the Council planned to monitor the effects on families of reductions to welfare benefits and the effect on services including those dealing with homelessness and malnutrition.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore responded by thanking Mr Hanson for a particularly passionate and emotive speech. She stated that the policy relating to the bedroom tax was a Government decision. As it was a national policy, there was little that the Council could do.

There were Government policies which also had a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable people. These included changes which reduced tax credits, the increase in VAT, the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance, a benefits cap and the rising cost of living. All of these things disproportionately affected the poorest and most vulnerable people. The City Council could not fill the gap left by these cuts and changes. Councillor Dore said that she was pleased that a future Labour government would repeal the legislation which introduced the bedroom tax and was the only party which would stand up for working people.

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, stated that, in Sheffield, the working poor would lose £180 and the rising cost of living for those who worked would result in a shortfall in household income of £6,000 by 2016. The Council was monitoring the effect of welfare reforms and an officer group was established, working with advice services and the Credit Union on what can be done to mitigate the effects of welfare change.

A report concerning welfare reform had been considered by the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee and it had been agreed that future monitoring reports would be submitted to that Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Chair, Councillor Chris Weldon, had agreed to write to the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to welfare reform.

Councillor Iqbal stated that the number of food banks was increasing and there was concern about payday loans, which was the subject of a Notice of Motion at this meeting of Council.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Bryan Lodge stated that he would like to assure people that, with regard to arrears with Council Tax or the bedroom tax, the Council would not evict people, providing they had made arrangements with the service.

(i)    Public Questions Concerning Selective Licensing

Wahid Nazir apologised for the behaviour of some of those people who attended a recent meeting concerning selective licensing which Councillor Mazher Iqbal also attended.

He referred to landlords in the University area of Sheffield, where the Council had raised similar concerns to those relating to the Page Hall area and where the ‘Snug’ scheme was introduced at a cost of £50 per property, and where properties were valued between £150K and £300K. He contrasted this with landlords in his own area of Page Hall, with properties at a value of £50K to £90K and where it was proposed to charge between £500 and £1,500 per property for a selective licence. Both proposals mention that landlords need to better manage their properties and tenancies and help reduce anti-social behaviour. He asked why this discrimination had occurred in relation to the proposals.

Ahsan Ashraf stated, in relation to selective licensing, that the costs of the license would be passed on to the tenants and this would make it more difficult for them to pay household bills.

Shafiq Uddin apologised to Councillor Iqbal in relation to the behaviour of some people who attended a meeting concerning selective licensing on 15 August.

He stated that for tenants from the European Union (EU) that arrive and are unable to provide a reference, they will not be able to live in a selective licence area. He stated that this would be a breach of the free movement of trade and labour EU Directive. He asked, how does the Council expect to deal with this issue?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that the Council was concerned and was looking at what happened at the meeting held on 15 August.

The purpose of the public consultation was to generate questions, responses and points of view in relation to proposals and look at alternatives. This was also evident by the points raised at the Council meeting today and at other engagement fora. Local Councillors were also involved in engagement activity and everyone had a responsibility to make sure that people demonstrated acceptable behaviour and to report incidents if appropriate.

The tenants, residents, landlords, Police and City Council all needed to make a commitment to address the range of issues present in the Page Hall area. Selective licensing may not be the solution to these issues of concern and the purpose of consultation was to explore this further.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, in reference to the 15^th August meeting, thanked Mr Nazir and Mr Uddin for their apology and their support.

(j)    Public Questions Concerning Remploy

Peter Davies, GMB, asked if the Council would commit to making sure that all procurement and commissioning processes within the Council’s influence included questions that clearly seek to establish what commitment partners have to the Council’s goals, objectives and desires, especially as set out in Notice of Motion 14 at this meeting of Council.

Robert Carlson asked if the Council was aware that a businessman from Hull, Mr Gerard Toplass, Managing Director of Claughtons, had tried, unsuccessfully, to get Remploy and the Government to take another look at his bid to save Sheffield’s Remploy factory. He asked what the Council could do to assist Mr Toplass.

James Stribley asked, given the Government’s decision regarding Remploy, which had resulted in Remploy workers being made unemployed, did the Council agree that it is especially important that the Council seeks commitment from its partners to assist it in achieving its desire to secure employment and support for vulnerable workers.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Bryan Lodge, stated that he was not convinced by the case put forward in the decision to close the Remploy factory in Sheffield, particularly given the longer term considerations, including people’s health, the opportunities for other employment and the cost of people claiming benefits. He wished those workers affected by the closure every success in finding alternative employment.

In relation to procurement, Councillor Lodge stated that, in connection to the commitment of partners, the wording suggested by Mr Stribley at the meeting of Council in July 2013 (relating to tender bids considering Remploy and Sharrow Industries vulnerable workers) was what the Council also wanted to incorporate into tender documents. He said that to help people into employment, it was important to gain the commitment of the Council’s partners.

As regards the bid by Mr Toplass in relation to Remploy, Councillor Lodge stated that he had already spoken with the Director of Creative Sheffield in connection with Mr Toplass’ bid back in August with regards to how the Council might support him. The long term effects of closing the Remploy factory needed to be considered. Clive Betts MP was interested and supportive of Remploy and Councillor Lodge stated that a statement was needed from the Department of Work and Pensions as to why it believed that the closure of the Remploy factory was the best value option.

(k)  Public Questions Concerning Accountability, Sanctions and a Voluntary Community Group

Martin Brighton stated that, at the Council meeting in July, the question was raised about the accountability of elected Members whose flawed decisions are costing the taxpayer. Since then, he stated, there have been two more cases of failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. He said that this intransigence was costing the taxpayer many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds and stated that surely, the Council leadership should intervene. He asked what intervention the Council Leader considers appropriate to prevent further unnecessary burdens upon the taxpayer.

Secondly, Mr Brighton stated that it is reasonable to assume that, where there is an agreement between the Council and voluntary community groups, both parties comply. If the voluntary community group does not comply, it is sanctioned. He asked what happens when the Council fails to comply?

Thirdly, Mr Brighton stated that it is a generally accepted principle that, if an appeal is made against a Council decision, then adverse actions such as sanctions are suspended until the outcome of the appeal. He asked: does this Council agree with/comply with this principle and can the Council please provide the policy documents and signpost the relevant procedures.

Fourthly, Mr Brighton stated that at full Council in July, the question was raised about Council policy when the Council makes untrue statements. He asked, should the Council impose sanctions based upon those untrue statements, is it not reasonable that the sanctions stop whilst the complaint about the untrue statements is investigated.

Finally, Mr Brighton asked the Council to please note that false and defamatory statements about a voluntary community group are being widely disseminated as part of a campaign to discredit that group among local peer groups, if not city-wide. He asked can there be any objection to that voluntary community group exercising its right of reply.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that in connection with the question concerning the Freedom of Information Act, she would require details of the elected Members concerned and the decision in relation to which they are alleged to have failed to comply under the Act.

Councillor Dore stated that, when the Council fails to comply with the terms of an agreement, there was a complaints procedure and people could make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman and to a Secretary of State. She asked Mr Brighton to let her have details of where he believed that the Council had failed to comply.

In relation to appeals, Councillor Dore stated that there would only be a suspension of sanctions depending on the outcome of the appeal. The relevant documents would depend on the subject matter of the appeal. Such appeals procedures included those relating to School Admissions and Planning decisions.

Councillor Dore stated that, if the Council takes a decision and someone believes it is on an untrue basis, then, until investigation, the imposition of that sanction is still in place.

The Cabinet Member for Communities and inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, stated that he was not aware of the matter to which Mr Brighton referred in his final question concerning statements about a voluntary group. He stated that there was a complaints procedure. Where the Council contracted with other organisations, there were a number of agreed principles.

(l)    Public Question Concerning Broadcasting of Council Meetings

Nigel Slack made reference to the change to the Council’s procedural rules to allow members of the public to routinely record Council meetings. However, he stated, it would also enable those of a mind to do so, to edit, distort and poke fun at those same Councillors and their views and that he did not believe that this is a substitute for the Council providing a proper, complete and unedited broadcasting of Council meetings. Without such coverage, he said, it will be difficult, time consuming and potentially expensive for the Council to counter such parodies or potentially libellous portrayals of the Council’s business.

Mr Slack stated that there was evidence that costs for official webcasting of Council meetings are much reduced from previous estimates provided by the Council, possibly at zero cost, and asked will the Council therefore undertake to review their stance on the potential for webcasting Council meetings.

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that, the Council would have to look at the detail of providing webcasting of its meetings held in public at potentially zero cost. Quite often, she stated, something such as broadcasting or webcasting at ‘no cost’ might also involve an element of advertising or sponsorship.

(m)     Public Question concerning Community Involvement Structures

Nigel Slack made reference to the new arrangements aimed at replacing the Community Assemblies. He stated that the ward meetings are to be the focus for community involvement and asked can Council explain why they are required to meet only once a year? 

He stated that each ward is to have a lead Ward Councillor appointed by Full Council and asked where is the local democracy in this, suggesting that they should be chosen by the Ward’s own Councillors and, if necessary, ratified by Council. He asked about the process at the Council meeting for filling the posts of Lead Ward Councillor.

In reference to the Chairs of the Local Area Partnerships, which Mr Slack said had already been chosen by the Full Council, he asked; where is the local democracy in this choice and suggested the lead Ward Councillors should choose who leads their Area.

Mr Slack stated that the report suggests that the wards may also hold ‘up to’ four additional meetings supported and resourced by the administrative team.  He asked what happens if wards wish to meet more often than that?

With respect to the Local Area Partnerships, and in reference to the report, Mr Slack asked the following:

-        Where are the public in this arrangement?

-        Where is the arrangement for the less influential local partners (the public) to be assisted by Council officers?

-        In relation to Local Area Partnership Meetings, why should the public be excluded from any of these meetings and those discussing key issues should be particularly open to transparent scrutiny.

In reference to consultation on the proposals and responses, Mr Slack stated that less than 43% of the respondents thought the proposals were a reasonable way forward and only 19% thought the proposals took account of the varying needs of Sheffield’s residents and said that we can only conclude that the current proposals suit the Council but not the community they are supposed to serve. He asked, will the Council undertake to improve these plans as a matter of urgency to reverse the whittling away of the City’s democratic structures?

In response, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, stated that, as Mr Slack had submitted a number of detailed questions on the subject of locality working, he would provide to him written responses, subject to Mr Slack’s agreement.

(Note: Mr Slack indicated that he agreed to this suggested approach.)

(n)      Public Question Concerning Questions to Cabinet Members

Mr Slack had submitted a third written question concerning the process of asking of public questions and providing supporting information and he asked how the Council prioritises the different democratic structures within the Council’s Constitution and which were considered dispensable in the current climate.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded to the question by stating that usually, for example at Meetings of the Council’s Cabinet, Mr Slack would be allowed a longer time to ask questions. There was not necessarily a priority order of democratic structures within the Constitution.