Agenda item

4.1

Communications

Rugby League Championship

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Vickie Priestley) congratulated Sheffield Eagles on retaining their Championship title, with a victory in the Grand Final on 29^th September.

4.2

Petitions

(a)         Petition Regarding the Demolition of Don Valley Stadium

The Council received an electronic petition containing 620 signatures and requesting the Council to stop the proposed demolition of Don Valley Stadium and to look at alternative uses for the Stadium.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Rob Creasey. He explained that he was a community sports coach in Sheffield and had worked with schools and Sheffield International Venues as well as being a user of Don Valley Stadium. He stated that the Friends of Don Valley Stadium were campaigning to develop the stadium as a community asset and widen its use for sport and the performing arts.

He stated that people had been shocked at the announcement of the stadium’s closure as the stadium was the second best such facility in the country, after the Olympics stadium in London. Users of the stadium discussed how to put together a plan to enable its use for sport, recreation and schools and community use by utilising the Localism Act and nominating the stadium as a community asset.  A feasibility and business plan would need to be developed.

The nomination to register the Stadium as a community asset was made in July. It was turned down, at the last moment, and the response suggested that the O2 Arena in London was an alternative similar venue for people in Sheffield. The campaign group were seeking legal advice in relation to the application.

Rob Creasey stated that the campaign would welcome the Council’s support in putting any progress toward demolition on hold and give people in the community time to work up proposals. He referred to the Tour de France in 2014 and that it would be a good opportunity for it to finish outside the stadium. He also reminded Councillors that they were elected to serve their constituents.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure. Councillor Bowler stated that she could not address the application to register the stadium as an asset of community value as it was subject to a legal challenge and it would be wrong for her to say anything in relation to this aspect.

Investment was being made in Woodbourn Road Stadium, with the support of Sport England and England Athletics and the stadium would be used as a training facility and had the support of both Sheffield Harriers and the City of Sheffield Athletics Club. At Woodbourn Road, athletics would be the priority. The facility was to be managed and maintained by Sheffield Hallam University and would open from Sunday 6 October.

Councillor Bowler stated that consultation relating to Don Valley Stadium had begun some 10 months ago. In August, she had asked the Director of Culture and Environment to meet with those members of the community who were developing a business plan and three meetings had taken place and information had been shared including profit and loss accounts. Don Valley Stadium had made a 700k deficit although it was accepted that costs might be reduced if the facility was community run.

£1 million of essential works were required at Don Valley and the costs of moth-balling, including insurance and security were significant and estimated to be 150K for a six month period and such expenditure would impact elsewhere on the Council’s budget.

Councillor Bowler said that she did admire the passion and enthusiasm which the members of the community and users of Don Valley stadium had shown. However, she believed that outdoor athletics had a home at Woodbourn Road. She also noted that the City was close to finding a new home for the Sheffield Eagles. She stated that she was optimistic about the future of athletics in Sheffield and the City’s status as a City of sport.

(b)         Petition Objecting to Anti-Social Behaviour in the Midland Street/Charlotte Road Area

The Council received a petition containing 21 signatures objecting to anti-social behaviour in the Midland Street/Charlotte Road area.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by a member of the public, who stated that residents living on the street needed help. Over the past three years, there had been a series of break-ins and incidents relating to alcohol, litter and drug taking. They asked for the Council’s help to move the family who were allegedly causing the problems referred to and which, they stated, would be the best thing for the area.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Harry Harpham, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods. Councillor Harpham said that the conditions which had been described were unacceptable and that people should not be expected to live in such conditions. On receipt of the petition, he stated that he had contacted both the anti-social behaviour team and South Yorkshire Police, who had both responded that they had no record of complaints from residents of Midland Street and Charlotte Road about these issues.

Councillor Harpham stated that, so that he could help, he would ask for the lead petitioner’s contact details with a view to visiting residents and seeing for himself the conditions which had been described so that the matters now raised could be dealt with.

(c)         Petition Complaining of Litter on the Streets Around Longley Sixth Form College

The Council received a petition containing 79 signatures complaining of litter on the streets around Longley Sixth Form College.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene.

(d)          Petition Requesting that Glover Road be Made One-Way

The Council received a petition containing 105 signatures, requesting that Glover Road be made one-way.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Maxine Walton who stated that the petition requested the alteration of Glover Road into a one-way system from Mickley Lane to the traffic lights. She pointed to the dangers presented by speeding traffic from Mickley Lane and the need for vehicles to mount the pavement, to enable traffic from the opposite direction to pass and the fact that the pavement was only constructed on one side of the road, which presented a danger to pedestrians. She stated that Glover Road was a rat run.

Recently, the road had been closed at the Mickley Lane end and vehicles had driven down it and made illegal u-turns onto Baslow Road. There had also been near accidents on the pelican crossing. A recent traffic count recorded 200 vehicles in 20 minutes.

She suggested that speed humps would not be solution to the problem of speeding vehicles as cars would simply speed up in between them. The petitioners’ suggested solution was to install cameras on the existing lights to identify vehicles which were speeding or in relation to other traffic violations. The cost of such a scheme could be funded by income from fines.

Local people were concerned that there could be an injury or possibly a death due to the dangers presented by traffic on Glover Road and the Council was requested to please make the Road safe for everyone.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall thanked the petitioners for bringing the matter to the Council and he stated that the petition was the first representation that had been made in relation to the issues raised. He informed the petitioners that the Council did receive a considerable number of requests for such highways schemes. Each request was assessed and scored and a priority list was produced when the Streets Ahead scheme went into an area, and an assessment was carried out with local ward councillors. The issue would now be put into the process.

(e)          Petition Requesting Speed Reduction Measures on Albert Road

The Council received a petition containing 69 signatures requesting speed reduction measures on Albert Road.

Representations of behalf of the petitioners were made by Keith Wrigley who stated that he was speaking on behalf of the local residents. The traffic had become a worse problem during the past 10 years in which he had lived on Albert Road, which had previously been a rat run to Chesterfield Road. Speed humps were introduced but motorists had subsequently complained that these were too high, causing the bottom of car exhausts to scrape over them and the height of the humps was lowered and some of them were almost flat. This enabled vehicles to travel at speed once more, especially in the stretches of road in between speed humps.

A dog had recently been run over and other pets had been killed on Albert Road and there was increasing concern over the safety of children. Some residents’ parked vehicles had also become damaged. The petition requested the implementation of a 20mph speed limit, although this would need to be enforced.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall stated that the Streets Ahead programme was due to be in the area covering Albert Road in 2014 and this programme would renew existing highways infrastructure and there may be an opportunity to look at the size and orientation of speed humps on Albert Road.

In relation to 20 mph speed limits, there had been cuts to the available funding. However, the Council was introducing 20 mph zones in 7 areas. Schemes were based on the relevant criteria and assessment. In the longer term, he stated 20 mph zones would be rolled out to all suitable residential areas.

(f)           Petition Objecting to the Proposed Withdrawal of Children’s Centre Prevention Services

The Council received a petition containing 209 signatures and objecting to the proposed withdrawal of Children’s Centre Prevention Services.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Colin Walker, who was a member of a Dad’s support group which was held at Sharrow Surestart Centre. He stated that people had been informed that the Dad’s support group would cease as there was no-one to run the service, unless this could be done on a voluntary basis. More widely, preventative services were closing down across Sheffield.

He stated that the tender process and the way in which the service had been divided prevented certain organisations from being able to bid to run services. A professional support service with expertise was required to support groups, including groups for disabled children and first time mums. Volunteers also needed support and in the long term their use was not sustainable, compared to a professional support service. He pointed to the need to ensure the safeguarding and health and safety of children and young people. He also believed that the consultation which had been undertaken only days before the closure of his group did not constitute proper consultation.

The closing of prevention services would have long term impacts for the support of children and young people. Prevention services that were deployed early minimised the help required by families in the longer term and were better than having to use intervention services.

The prevention services were already budgeted for and it was not acceptable to say that no one could be found to run services.   The petition asked the Council to take emergency action in relation to this matter.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Councillor Drayton stated that she appreciated the petitioners submitting the petition to Council and said that the issues raised were very important. She reminded the petitioners that the Council had had budget cuts of over £230m over the last 3 years and that on top of that, Children, Young People and Families had a further cut of £6.8m.  She added that a £3.5m cut had to be found in Early Years and that it was not possible to take that much out of a budget and it not make a difference.

As the Council had 3 contracts that were coming to an end, in Early Years it was decided to review those contracts and to make savings from management, administration and premises costs and to retender new contracts for intervention services and also prevention services across the City. The Council had protected services wherever possible and had specifically targeted the deployment of early intervention services and those services to the most vulnerable children and families. These included health, parenting, breastfeeding support and debt advice.

Following the contracts coming to an end and the tender process, unfortunately the winning providers refused the contracts they had put in for and were offered.  Therefore, the Council had to review the tender contract and service specification.  This meant the Groups who had a worker supporting them would not have one in the future. Officers had gone to speak with all the groups that would be affected, to explain the circumstances and to ask whether anyone would wish to volunteer to help keep the groups going.  The Officers also stated the groups could continue to meet in the Centres and there would still be other services going on. Councillor Drayton stated that she believed that there had been an offer from a volunteer at Sharrow, although from the information given in the petition, it seemed that the position had changed.

Councillor Drayton stressed that Children’s Centres were still open, although the Council unfortunately could not provide workers to support groups, such as the Dad’s group at Sharrow. However, they were doing everything they could to ensure the most vulnerable children and families were being protected and that groups were enabled to continue with the help of parent/carer volunteers if they wanted to.

4.3

Public Questions

(a)         Public Questions concerning prevention services for children, young people and families

Hilda Muleahy stated that, according to the initial tender, the Council was budgeting to run prevention services until April 2014 and she referred to the crucial role of such services in child protection. She asked why the service was being cut now, rather than being brought in-house?

Linda Edwards stated that in carrying out the re-design of early years services, the Council had said that financial savings would be made and quality would improve. Since then, the Council had been taken through a Judicial Review process and the Court had said that the case should be heard in relation to people’s voices being heard. She stated that people were being affected by the changes to early years provision and asked how the Council was planning to meet its statutory duties to provide information, early health advice and support at outreach sites now that workers in preventative services had been withdrawn.

Linda Edwards also referred to the lot 1 (prevention services) tender and asked how the Council was to amend and placate people regarding TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) information and she stated that it was illegal to have volunteers running services, which people had been employed to do.

In relation to prevention services, she stated that only 4 of the 9 available contracts were agreed and asked what criteria were used in relation to a failed contract or tender that led to the conclusion that led to the withdrawal of the service. She stated that lot 2 (intervention) services were moving to the MAST (Multi-Agency Support Teams) and asked what savings had been made in relation to lot 2 and whether existing family support workers would be subject to TUPE as they were being taken in – house. She indicated that a more detailed response in writing would be acceptable.

Sarah Wealthall asked what has happened to the money allocated for prevention services and why staff in prevention services were not subject to TUPE in the same way as those in intervention services. She stated the families need both prevention and intervention services.

Chrissy Meleady stated that she had previously raised the issue of bullying and intimidation at Sheffield Children’s Centre. She said that people had been evicted from the premises in relation to money which they did not owe, heating had been turned off and people using the Centre were subject to other examples of victimisation. People were also redirected to other grade 3 private provision and she stated that she had a Council document which referred children in Sharrow to another area. She asked why has the victimisation and intimidation continued at Sheffield Children’s Centre and other children’s centres.

She stated that 100 mothers had come forward as volunteers in partnership with the Council. She asked why the Council was carrying through the policies of the Government, which she stated was destroying people’s lives.

Joy French stated that she worked as a volunteer in a faith organisation and previously worked in CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services). She stated that there was evidence which says that preventative work with families with young children develops attachment and attunement. Cuts in such services inevitably leads to increased problems in other areas and costs in relation to education, social care, the criminal justice system and health services. She asked is this not short sighted economic planning?

Carl Birkinshaw, stated that he was a member of the Sharrow Dad’s group and asked why money had been wasted in putting a service out to tender and was concerned that as part of the process, the service had been broken up into 6 pieces. He asked how is the consultation being done and what communication was being done in relation to the results of the tender process.

Javier Heinendez asked what the Council’s plans were for Sharrow Surestart Centre, referring to it as a place where children can play and families receive support.

A question was asked by Matt concerning the cost of the tender process and asking how much it would cost to keep the Sharrow Dad’s group running.

A question was asked on behalf of Karen as to what will happen next year when free early learning places for 2 year olds are introduced more widely and nurseries and early years’ services have closed?

Theo Stamose stated that the Sharrow Surestart Dad’s group was presented with a paper on 21 September, stating that the provision of prevention services commissioned by the Council would cease. However, on 30 September a briefing paper was seen which stated that the activities at the Sharrow Surestart Centre were not closing. He asked which of these was true.

Sally Pearse stated that her organisation had bid for one of the early years’ services which was subject to a tender process. She referred to the limited timescales and to the fact that as part of the process, a consortium was set up and the bid put forward. Having been successful in the bid, they had found that there were additional liabilities relating to TUPE. She asked who approved, what she believed was a deeply flawed tender process which was liable to fail and who was responsible for the gaps in due diligence. What was happening to the £375K which was allocated to prevention services and to the early intervention funding of £81K.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, Councillor Jackie Drayton, responded by thanking people for their passion and commitment to early years, which was needed, especially at this particular time.

Councillor Drayton stated that in reference to the Dad’s group at Sharrow, at the time when an officer had gone to speak with members of the group, an individual had been keen to volunteer to support the group in future, although from the information given in the petition, the position had changed.

The Sharrow Children’s Centre would remain open and would continue to provide services including health and breastfeeding services. The Dad’s group would be welcome to continue to meet at the Children’s Centre.

She stated that she agreed with the points which had been raised concerning attainment and attunement, which were vital and reflected in the Council’s commitment to protect intervention services. The Council was working with the voluntary sector on a Lottery bid, which it was hoped would result in significant funding for early years provision over a period of 10 years.

Councillor Drayton stated that in relation to any allegations of victimisation relating to Children’s Centres, she would request that the specific details, including who was involved and where and when the incident occurred, were provided to her to follow up.  She also stated that she wanted to reassure members of the public that the Council always took any allegation seriously and any incident would be investigated thoroughly by the legal team and possibly handed on the police.

Councillor Drayton confirmed that the Council would continue to meet its statutory responsibilities together with its partners in the health service. The Council are currently in the process of making arrangements to transfer those existing intervention staff, who are currently employed by the NHS, Action for Children and Family Action and who wish to transfer into Sheffield City Council, under the TUPE agreement.

Councillor Drayton reassured the questioner that the tender was carefully written and it was clear in the documents and information that went out that there were TUPE implications for the contract and it was also an issue which was mentioned to bidders to be sure they understood the issues. Services were put out to tender and bidders submitted their applications.  The applications were scored and three providers were informed that they had won a contract. Three of the successful bidders refused the contract. The bidders who had come in second place were then asked whether they wished to take the contracts and they also refused. One provider had accepted and was awarded the contract.

Councillor Drayton stated that she would investigate the process relating to the tenders for services. She added that the funding which the Council received for free early learning was exactly what the Council had lost in relation to funding previously made available for early years provision.

Councillor Drayton stated that she would write to those people who had asked for a written response to questions.

(b)         Public Question concerning Taxi Operating Licences

Jen Dunstan asked a question concerning operating licences for taxi operators and drivers. She stated that in a particular case, drivers had been expected work under the company’s umbrella operator’s licence. She asked what the Council was going to do about this situation.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, Councillor Isobel Bowler, stated that she would refer the question to the Council’s Head of Licensing to investigate.

(c)         Public Question concerning Budget Cuts

Gareth Lane stated that he welcomed the fact that Councillor Julie Dore had committed to support the anti-austerity campaign. He said that a demonstration against austerity was to be held in Sheffield on 8^th November 2013, organised by the People’s Assembly. He asked if Councillor Dore and the Council would support the demonstration.

In response, Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council stated that she believed that the Government’s austerity programme was unnecessary in terms of the speed at which it was being implemented and the particular places and people it affected. There was a disproportionate effect on people and places in the north of the country and on the most vulnerable people.

Councillor Dore stated that people have a right to hold a demonstration in a free society, even if others did not agree with their cause. If people wished to hold a demonstration they should abide by the relevant legislation. She asked that, if the organisers wanted specific actions to be taken by the Council in relation to the planned demonstration, they should make a request to the Council.

(d)          Public question concerning Zero Hours Contracts

Jackson Baines asked if the Council used zero hours contracts and where and what steps were taken to combat the use of such contracts and get fair conditions for people?

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Bryan Lodge, responded that the Council did use zero hours contracts following negotiation with the trades unions. He stated that there was ambiguity and misinterpretation in relation to zeros hours contracts. Employees with zero hours contracts had terms and conditions which were in line with those for other full time employees.

For services which were provided by other parties, the Council expected employers to behave in a certain way and there were expectations in tenders for Council services in relation to terms and conditions. The Council worked with trades unions in this regard.

The Council did not approve of circumstances where some private businesses exploited the use of zero hours contracts.

(e)          Public Question concerning Don Valley Stadium

Tim Appleyard stated, in relation to the process for registering the Don Valley Stadium as a community asset, it had been difficult to obtain information concerning the full three year figures. He also stated that it was felt that the facility had been run down over the past 3 years. A Freedom of Information request would be submitted to obtain all of the information that was required. He made reference to reports on land licences prior to Don Valley Stadium being closed. He asked the cost of demolishing the Stadium and asked whether it would be better to save the building.

Councillor Isobel Bowler, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, said that she was sorry that it was felt that the Council had not provided enough information. She stated that the costs relating to Don Valley Stadium were available on the Council’s website. The cost of closing Don Valley Stadium and opening the Woodbourn Road Stadium were £486k. The cost to demolish the Don Valley Stadium had been estimated by surveyors and was included in the Council’s consideration of this issue. However, the demolition work was subject to commercial procurement and she was not able to share those estimated costs at the present time. There was a need for significant capital expenditure on the Don Valley Stadium, although main issue was the continuing revenue costs and the fact that facilities for athletics in the City could be provided at Woodbourn Road.

Councillor Bowler stated that if Mr Appleyard wanted more information, she would do everything that she could to make sure that it was made available.

(f)          Public question concerning Care Providers’ Pay

The following question was asked on behalf of Jen Dunstan:

Why was a care provider in Sheffield not paying their base-rate staff the minimum wage and as the commissioner of their services, the City Council should ensure that this matter was rectified.

The Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, Councillor Mary Lea, responded that the Council had contracts with a number of independent sector providers and the Council took seriously its duty of care to people that it cared for. She said that she would discuss the matter with Council officers and would contact the questioner with a response.

(g)          Public question concerning Support for Hard Working People

Jack Hetherington asked what the Council is doing for hard working people. He referred to the industrial action by teachers on 1^st October and asked what the Council was doing to support people and when was the Council going to start standing up to the Government and doing something in relation to the cuts.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that the Government was imposing hardship, particularly on the people of Sheffield.

(h)         Public questions concerning the Library Service

David Kirkham asked questions which he directed to the Chief Executive of the Council. He referred to comments attributed to John Mothersole in the Local Government News concerning the library service and asked why he had made the comments.  He expressed concern that there was a suggestion that a fourth-rate service would be implemented. He asked whether the Chief Executive believed that the use of volunteers to manage library services was the appropriate way forward and stated that this would allow the Council to abrogate accountability and responsibility for services.

Patrick Black referred to the proposed cuts to the library service, including the closing of up to 15 libraries, loss of 75 jobs and ceasing the mobile library service. He asked where the cuts would end and referred to the Council’s role in implementing the austerity cuts.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that people should not necessarily believe everything that they read in the papers

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, responded in relation to the Local Government News article that one element of what was said had been quoted. He stated that the Council did not set the national budget. The Council and other cities in the north of the country was facing disproportionate and unfair cuts to its funding and in the next two years the Council had to find additional savings of £80 million.

Councillor Iqbal stated that the Council was carrying out consultation concerning the library service and no decisions had been made at this time. He had spoken with groups at Totley, Stannington, Newfield   and Woodhouse and 30 organisations had said that they wished to work with the Council to retain library services.

(i)            Public Questions concerning the ‘Bedroom Tax’

Oliver Clayton stated that the Council had pledged to protect residents with regards to the effects of the ‘Bedroom tax’ and he asked, in this context, what constitutes engagement with the Council?

A question was asked on behalf of Jen Dunstan as follows: why is the Council stoic in implementing the Bedroom tax when it has been admitted that the measure is running at a deficit?

The Deputy Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, Councillor Harry Harpham, responded by referring to the Labour Party’s statement at its party conference that it would scrap the Bedroom Tax and introduce measures relating to energy prices. Councillor Harpham contrasted this with the priorities of the party conferences of the other Political Parties.

Central Government policy meant that people would not be paid Housing Benefit to cover the cost of their rent if their home had what were considered to be spare bedrooms.

The Council had engaged with people who would be affected by the Bedroom tax by visiting them and speaking with them about a range of issues including budgeting and access to advice such as from Citizens Advice. The Council had also put in place a debt advice worker to advise tenants who were at risk of being in rent arrears and to help them access finance through the Credit Union.

Councillor Harpham stated that, if the Council had undertaken all of that activity with a tenant and the tenant refused to engage in the process, only then would the Council have to take other action which was open to it.

(j)           Public Question concerning the nature of ‘a question’

Nigel Slack asked “What’s in a question?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that she would need the question’s background or context. The answer to a question depended upon the question, the individual and why they were asking it and the nature of the response they would want to receive.

(k)         Public Question concerning the Sustainable Communities Act

Nigel Slack asked why do the Council’s amendments to item 14 (on the Council Summons) concerning the Sustainable Communities Act, display an apparent disregard for allowing the community the opportunity to come up with ideas and a bias towards big business and the national retail companies, rather than local small businesses with the added benefits they bring to the table?

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, Councillor Leigh Bramall, stated that the Council was asked to look at the supermarket levy, which would apply to all retailers over a certain size, which would include retailers such as WH Smith, Marks and Spencer, Primark and John Lewis. The development of the City Centre was a crucial aspect of the future prosperity of Sheffield and it was the Council’s responsibility to help to grow the economy. Many new small businesses had been introduced at Chapel Walk, for example, and it was important to support small businesses in the City Centre.

It was not felt that the proposed levy on supermarkets would be beneficial to the City. Business Rates were paid to the Government and Sheffield was a net beneficiary of the income from business Rates because of its specific needs and the City was therefore reliant on Business Rates. It was a crucial policy to bring about growth in the Business Rate base. The proposed levy would be most likely to damage such an increase in the Business Rate base and, in turn, the ability to fund basic Council services.

(l)           Public Questions concerning Freedom of Information Act

Martin Brighton stated that it has been brought to the attention of the Council before, that costs for failing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act are racking up at the expense of the taxpayer. However, he stated, since last month, there have been further serious failures. Mr Brighton asked:

(1)  Doesn’t the Leader care; and

(2)  When will officers and elected Members be held to account

Mr Brighton stated that an offending elected Member blames this citizen for the costs incurred that force the Council to disclose information that the law says should have been made publicly available and asked:

(3)         Does the Leader agree with this kind of character slur?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded and  stated that she was not aware of Freedom of Information requests where costs are ‘racking up’ and asked Mr Brighton to let her have the details. She stated that she did care about the expenditure of the Council as the Council now had less money because of government funding cuts.

(m)        Public Question concerning Keeping Promises

Mr Brighton stated that at Cabinet, the Leader agreed that elected Members can be expected to keep their promises, yet an elected Member continues to flout her leadership. He stated that the information has already been provided. He asked, was this citizen just being patronised?

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that she expected elected Members to keep promises, this was not patronising where it was a genuine promise.

(n)         Public Question concerning prejudice

Mr Brighton stated that, at Cabinet, the Leader made it clear that the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies, yet is doing nothing about an elected Member who supports sanction on prejudice admittedly, and [he quoted] “on the basis of no evidence”. He asked what message does this send across the nation.

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that she believed in the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

(o)         Public Questions concerning Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks

Mr Brighton stated that many in this Chamber will recall 5 November 2008, when this citizen was vilified by a previous Leader, for simply claiming that there were no CRB checks in place for Council-sponsored activity. Events have since shown this citizen to have been correct all along. He stated that meanwhile, it has been published how in 2006, a regional Tory leader was invited to an RMBC meeting and asked to keep quiet about child abuse. The errant senior manager came to Sheffield City Council shortly afterwards, prompting the questions of 2008.

Mr Brighton asked the following questions:

(1)  What does this say about this Council’s application of due diligence; and

(2)  When will this Council genuinely listen?

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that the particular case concerning Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council was the subject of an inquiry and she could not comment on the case, which was of a serious nature.

(p)          Public Question concerning review of Answers to Previous Questions

Mr Brighton stated that, at last month’s full Council, the Leader answered questions from this citizen and was asked in writing to review those answers. He stated that no review has taken place. He asked, given his first question above, what example does this set for the Council.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore responded that in respect of the answers that she gave at the last Council meeting, she had just answered the questions again.