Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition requesting a reduction in charges for parking permit schemes

The Council received a petition containing 290 signatures and requesting a reduction in charges for parking permit schemes.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sarah Jane Smalley. She stated that the prices of permits had increased to £36 for residents’ parking permits and £12.50 for a book of visitor permits. Residents were informed that the parking permit schemes would be non-profit making. She also stated that this was a ‘stealth tax’, the money from which was not being spent in the same areas in which it was received. The charges particularly affected older people and vulnerable people and families with more than one car.

The parking permits schemes were a good idea, but the expansion of such schemes might be affected by people’s perception that a surplus is made by the Council. She asked the Council to review the situation and consider reducing the charge of permits back to the level of £10, which they had been previously.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, Councillor Leigh Bramall. Councillor Bramall stated that the context had to be considered. The claim regarding the making of a surplus on residents’ parking permits ignored the costs of the schemes.

A principle had been established that, where people benefit from the parking permit scheme, it was right that they should pay toward the cost of it. Residential Parking schemes were first introduced in 2004/5 and the cost of a resident’s parking permit was £35, which then increased to £36. The charges did not cover the full costs of the schemes.

Permits then reduced to £10 in 2010 and other Council resources were required to fill the resultant gap in funding. In subsequent years, it has become increasingly difficult to commit as much resource to bridge the funding gap in the context of Government austerity cuts affecting the Council’s budget. The charge for a residents’ permit was then increased from £10 to £36 (which was the same charge as that made in 2006). This was so that the permit fees contributed a greater proportion of the costs of operating permit parking schemes but only to the same level as in 2010.

If a proposal was made to reduce the cost of residents’ permits to £10, then it was also important to explain how the decrease would be funded, for example by cutting the funding allocated to other services provided by the Council or by increasing the Council Tax. The wider context may be missed. An increase in Council Tax might be considered arbitrary because it affected people in all areas of the City, including areas with greater levels of deprivation where permits are not issued.

Councillor Bramall made reference to the comparative costs of parking permit schemes in Brighton and Hove, which were between £90 and £120. He stated that he believed that Sheffield had achieved a balance between schemes which provided a benefit to people and were reasonably priced, compared to other similar schemes. The City Council would not increase the cost of permits in the next financial year.

4.1.2

Petition Regarding Possible Library Closures

The Council received a petition containing seven signatures requesting the Council to reconsider the proposals to close any libraries in Sheffield and to work with the people of Sheffield to develop an alternative plan.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Marcus O’Hagan. Mr O’Hagan stated that the seven signatories to the petition represented people from the 14 groups from libraries which were under threat of closure. He stated that people were upset and felt threatened by the prospect of library closures and these groups wanted to help each other.

He stated that it was hoped that the Council was able to reconsider the position with regard to libraries, particularly with regard to children, older people and those who were unemployed, who were dependent upon libraries. He stated that he did not think that decision makers in the Council did wish to close libraries and asked Councillors to do the right thing for the people who elected them. 

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

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Libraries

(a)

Marcus O’Hagan stated that, in regard to the ongoing library consultation, it is widely perceived and can be demonstrated that the needs analysis and consultation documents are deeply flawed with statistical error, wrongly drawn conclusions and loaded questions. He asked: is this Chamber happy with the quality of this work and does it feel that decisions can be made in the light of this. Can it please show that those carrying out this work are suitably qualified?

Mr O’ Hagan stated that when he came to this chamber he often saw people upset because they feel the questions they ask are not properly answered. Sometimes there were shouts of protest and Lord Mayor had to intervene to keep order. He asked whether, to assist the Lord Mayor and the democratic process in the City, the Council would approve the preparation, publishing and handing out to questioners of a form which explained what people can and should do if they are not happy with the responses they receive. This could include the request for review procedure and in the case of the Council not responding to this request an approach to the Information Commissioner.

(b)

Michael Davis stated that there were a number of library support groups which had come forward during the period of library consultation with ideas relating to the library service. He referred to the Notices of Motion on the Council meeting agenda and to the support for the rights of the individual to campaign. Campaigning would only have any meaning when the views expressed are listened to by the decision makers. He asked the Cabinet Member to assure people that this was not a box-ticking exercise but their views would be seriously considered and carry weight when the decision to retain or close libraries is made.

(c)

Alison Cowper stated that during the short period for the consultation, she and others had become aware of what appear to be oversights in the consultation process. For example, consultation on alternative arrangements for people using the reading for health facility, who might not be able to travel by public transport; home educators who rely on the libraries for literacy material and, in the case of Greenhill Library, the nursery group, the pre-school and the school, who all use the library and would not be in a position to take groups of children to the alternative proposed provision at Woodseats (a library which the Council describes as the most dilapidated in Sheffield). She asked can the Council assure people that the consultation has been sufficiently rigorous and will not be subject to a successful legal challenge at great expense to the people of Sheffield.

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, responded to the petition and questions. He stated that he had met with Mr O’Hagan during the visits which he had been making across the City. The Libraries Review had started in 2011 and there had been a number of consultation events such as during last summer, when there had been over six thousand people respond and also last year, the Council published the library prospectus, to encourage as many organisations across the City and further afield to come forward to look at how a viable and sustainable model for libraries could be found. This year, answering the points about whether this was a short period of consultation, the consultation ran over a period of three months. Any plans to change the library service were never going to be easy and as he had said a number of times, this was not a great move for the City. However, the Council could not continue with the library service as it was. Hours of opening had been reduced and vacancies had not been filled. Given the huge savings which had to be made, the service could not continue as it was. Proposals for the future of the library service were published in September 2013 and the Council had had to ensure that these complied with the requirements of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service.

Councillor Iqbal referred to appendices which formed part of the proposals, one of which concerned the different models which were explored. The Council also looked at good practice across the country and colleagues visited five cities to find out how those places had carried out a review and how library services were working in their areas. Thirteen models were examined to ascertain the relative pros and cons of each model. This information was available on the Council’s website. The proposals which the Council put forward, in three categories were, firstly, to ensure that the Council met the efficient and comprehensive duty in respect to the library service, so eleven hub libraries were proposed taking into account the geography and demography of Sheffield. The second category was to use the principles of the Fairness Commission. There were huge inequalities which have existed in Sheffield for many decades. The Council has signed up to the Fairness Commission Principles in order to look at how to bridge the inequality gap. The third category was independent libraries.

Councillor Iqbal stated that, as he had gone around the City with colleagues, it had been a genuine exercise and people had come out on cold evenings to meet with him and hear what the proposals were about. People had been given the opportunity not only to complete the questionnaire, and nine thousand responses had been received to the recently concluded consultation, but also to give people the opportunity to ask him and Council officers about the proposals. Information which had been requested had been provided and the Council had been open and transparent. The running costs had been provided for each library. Community organisations had come forward saying they would like to work with the Council and a guidance pack had been issued for community groups to put together a business case to keep as many libraries open as possible. Business cases had been submitted by community groups in respect of each of the libraries that were threatened with closure. 

He referred to unprecedented cuts which the Council was facing, in which it had had to reduce its budget by £180 million and further savings would need to be made in the forthcoming years. In this context, the Library service was not able to continue as it had done. Therefore, as part of the listening exercise he stated that the Council was analysing the information that it had received. It had been agreed at the Council meeting in January 2014 that the matter would be taken to the appropriate Scrutiny Committee and would then be considered at Cabinet, at which a final decision would be made. He hoped that as many people as possible would be able to come to the Scrutiny Committee and the Cabinet meeting.

(d)

Will Hiorns asked a number of questions, as summarised below:

Does the Council accept that illiteracy has profound long term economic and social costs; that library services have a central role in encouraging literacy in children and adults; and that, in the long term, library services save councils money?

Does the Council accept that more efficient does not actually mean smaller; believe that volunteers can do the same job as skilled professional librarians more efficiently; or is it that volunteers do not need to be paid and so look cheaper?

He stated that it could be argued that bigger, better library services are more efficient in the long term and asked: does the Council agree that it would be interesting to hear legal opinion on that?

He also stated that the Council was proposing cuts because of a decrease in borrowing, but it was the local authority’s statutory duty to encourage people to use the library service. He asked, what concrete actions the Council has taken in respect of that duty and with what budget allocation; what actions the Council has taken to understand and reverse the decline in borrowing; were the borrowing figures compensated for library closures and reduced opening hours; and over what period of time has this trend been visible?

Mr Hiorns stated that, nationally, borrowing by children had increased and asked does the Council believe that Sheffield is special and different from that trend and is it content with that; or does the Council accept that this national trend may also be true in Sheffield but not measured during the review?

He referred to the presentation of an example of research reports that measure return on investment in library services and asked what has been done with that evidence; who has discussed it; what conclusions were drawn; in what ways has the Council integrated this knowledge into the proposal; and what is the strategic view of the sustainability of increased long-term costs due to short term dismantling of library services?

Mr Hiorns referred to the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources statement in relation to the renovation of Council buildings as making sound financial sense. He asked, why does the same logic not apply to return on investment through library services; is it because buildings are easily visible but illiteracy is not; and is that interest on borrowing against literacy will be paid for by future councils and not this one?

(e)

Kathy Whitaker asked, given flaws in the needs assessment, is the Council prepared to acknowledge that its primary motivation in the selection of libraries to close is political?

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, responded by referring to the information concerning the proposals on the Council’s website and he read an extract from the vision document to summarise the Council’s stance.

He said that efficiency does not mean “smaller” and that when he had visited areas of the City in relation to the proposals concerning libraries or when he had been asked questions at Council or spoken to the press, he had not mentioned that library usage was falling. Usage nationally and in Sheffield was falling and in the summer of 2012, the first consultation was put in place to find out from existing library users and to hear from non-library users what it was that the Council would need to encourage people to use the library service. That formed the basis of the proposals which the Council now put forward. He had not said that the decisions which were to be taken relating to libraries were because of falling numbers.

In relation to volunteers, one of the models which was explored included looking at whether there was sufficient volunteer capacity and a track record in Sheffield to take up the challenge of running a library service. The proposals included how the Council could work with communities to run the library service. The Council wanted to promote reading and a wide range of resources for people of all ages.

In terms of research which had been undertaken, the Council had looked at good practice and visited five other local authorities, including Wakefield. Analysis was currently being carried out on all of the information which had been gathered and the resulting report would be made available at the Scrutiny Committee and it would be considered by the Cabinet.

There were 11 proposed hub libraries and, if the closure of specific libraries was a political decision then the Council would have ignored the Libraries Act, which places a statutory duty on the Council, to provide a comprehensive and efficient service. He stated that he believed that there had been some scaremongering and possibly hijacking by individuals of some of the good work which communities were doing to try to save their libraries. The list of libraries which were threatened with closure did impact on Councillors from different parties. For example in Birley Ward, which could lose two libraries. The Council had to provide an efficient and comprehensive library service and it had also signed up to the principles of the Fairness Commission.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources stated that the Council’s accommodation strategy was about using buildings more efficiently. By using less expensive accommodation and not using rented accommodation, the Council would be able to save £30 million over the next 10 years. Capital resources were being used now to save in the future.

(f)

Hugh Cotton referred to the consultation process and to the analysis which would be made of the results. He stated that the fourth recommendation of the report of the Executive Director dated 25^th September 2013 entitled “The Future of Sheffield Library Service”, stated that the Council would consider whether any further consultation is required as part of the report to Cabinet. He stated that he appreciated that a lot of work had gone into the consultation. However, there was a lot of opposition to the prospect of libraries being closed. He stated that there had effectively not been consultation with regard to the proposed hub libraries. He asked how do the Council plan to provide for any further consultation before the Cabinet meeting on 19 February; and if there is no time for consultation and it became clear that this was necessary, is the Council prepared to postpone the library closure programme this year so that further consultation can take place?

(g).

Ruth Woodhouse stated that the Council had not consulted effectively with children, families or schools concerning young people’s need for local libraries and librarians. Library groups had conducted surveys, as the Council’s survey forms were unusable for children, and these had shown that thousands of children in Sheffield use, value and need their local library. Under 18s accounted for 31 percent of library users in Sheffield and she stated that consultation which omitted their voice was misrepresentative.

Park Library was increasing and promoting usage with children and in 2012 surveys of users prioritised keeping staff. However, a local group had bid to take over the Library with no dedicated Council staff and without consulting children, schools or families.

She referred to a response by Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families to a request for review concerning literacy issues which stated that schools have a major responsibility for teaching reading. Ruth Woodhouse stated that it was the legal responsibility of parents to ensure that children are properly educated and the loss of libraries would be detrimental to them fulfilling that duty.

She stated that she had requested minutes of any meetings where the Cabinet Member had championed the use of libraries by young people and where these needs had been discussed by Councillors, which had not been provided. She asked if the Cabinet Member could please tell the Chamber why she thinks she should remain in her post whilst apparently ignoring the plight of the young people she is there to represent.

(h)

Peter Hartley requested a written response to his written questions. He stated that there were six more branch libraries in the City in 1963. He expressed concern that if £1.6 million of the budget for libraries was reduced, there would be library closures. The Central Library had previously been open from 9 am to 9pm. He stated that over 22,000 people had signed petitions to save branch libraries. He asked how many more signatures would be needed before the Council would change its policy. He asked what assurances were there that further cuts would not be made in the future.

(i)

Nick Howard stated that a general grouping of representatives of library groups had met and had agreed to put forward a combined resolution, as follows: that they did not wish to see any public library close; they did not wish to see any paid librarian currently in employment lose their jobs; did not want voluntary groups to take over the running of any of the libraries; were in favour of public services, which are required by an Act of Parliament from the Council and were angry that the Council was acting against that ethos. In reference to consultation with groups outside of Sheffield, Mr Howard asked whether the Cabinet Member or officers had also been in consultation with an organisation which now ran all of the public libraries in Birmingham.

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal responded to the questions. He stated that hub libraries were part of the consultation process and that ideas and suggestions received as part of that process were being analysed and this would be made available to the Scrutiny Committee and discussed at Cabinet. He stated that he did not believe there was a need for further consultation. The review was started 3 years ago and there had been a number of consultation exercises. The proposals which the Council had put forward in the most recent consultation were also subject to change and he did not believe further consultation was needed.

In relation to the question concerning staff at Park Library, £180 million had been taken away from the Council and further cuts were being imposed in future years and 1,200 valuable members of staff had been lost and unfortunately there would be further redundancies. This was not something that the Council chose to do and the cuts had been imposed by the Government. He was not able to make assurances about which members of staff will or will not be in place and this is not something that would be appropriate for him to say.

As part of the second consultation exercise, which had just been concluded, the Council had been at a number of dedicated facilities in the City and there was a dedicated telephone line for people to give their views, language line resources were provided so that interpretation was available, postcards were produced, regular press releases were made and seven and half thousand emails were sent to organisations. Sheffield Futures was commissioned to organise focus groups with secondary school age pupils and young people up to the age of 25 and the children’s commissioning team were also engaged in organising focus groups with primary school age children. There was also targeted work to ensure that the views were obtained of carers, disabled people, older people and children and young people.

Councillor Iqbal stated that it was important that people had the opportunity to put petitions and questions to the Council and that the Council was listening. He had been to meetings around the City, together with other councillors and officers. The documents concerning the proposals had said that proposals could be subject to change and the Council would examine the analysis resulting from the consultation. 

The organisation to which Mr Howard had referred had not approached the Council. As part of the consultation last year, it had been said that the Council would work to keep as many libraries open as possible. There were business plans in respect of all of the libraries that were threatened with closure.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families stated, in reference to the question from Ruth Woodhouse, that she apologised if she had upset her with the response that she had made in writing. She stated that Ruth Woodhouse had also asked her to respond in relation to literacy.

Whilst she had only received the questions today, she would respond the questions as they had been put forward by Ruth Woodhouse.

She had said how much she valued libraries and how important they were to communities and particularly older and young people. Unfortunately, the Council was in a difficult position as regards its budget. The Council would not have put forward any closures of any libraries if it did not have to. Councillor Drayton read part of the detailed letter which she had sent to Ruth Woodhouse.

Councillor Drayton referred to an emphasis on literacy, and the central role of schools, which have major responsibility for teaching and promoting a love of literacy.

Schools now offered additional support for reading through, for example, school libraries and breakfast clubs. She was keen that schools promote a love of reading and development of vocabulary. There was also focus upon supporting reading and literacy development in families, for example through the ESCAL project (Every Sheffield Child Articulate and Literate), stories for talking and targeted programmes for families and children and the Book Awards. There was also support in early years and for families. She agreed that parents have an important role to play but it was vital that schools promote literacy, especially for those children who are the most disadvantaged.

4.2.2

Public Question Concerning Benefits and Rent Services

Ken Turton stated that there had been a lack of liaison between services in relation to benefits which support people who paid rent and were on low earnings and he wished to know why that was the case.

He referred to a dispute he had with the Council’s rent service whereby he had to pay full rent. He believed that the benefits to which he was entitled should have been part of the calculation. Mr Turton stated that this illustrated a lack of co-operation between the Council and other agencies and asked how this situation would be improved.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Ben Curran, responded that, if Mr Turton had such matters of concern in future, he did not have to wait until a Council meeting and that he could raise concerns with him as the appropriate Cabinet Member, at any time. He stated that Mr Turton’s written question made reference to concerns about liaison between the Benefits and rent service. Whilst this relationship was well established and quite successful, errors might occur from time to time. He would not go into the details of Mr Turton’s individual case at this meeting. Councillor Curran stated that he would write to Mr Turton or could meet with him.

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning the Streets Ahead Contract

Nigel Slack referred to a question which he had asked at the Council meeting in January concerning changes to the Streets Ahead Contract, in relation to which the Cabinet Member, Councillor Jack Scott was able to give more detail on the subject of the decision. At the subsequent Cabinet meeting, Mr Slack stated that he asked whether it would be possible for the Council to record future decisions of this nature with more transparency, rather than to exempt all information for the sake of what appeared to be a relatively small amount of confidential information. Councillor Dore had responded that the Council was committed to being as open and transparent as possible.

Mr Slack asked that, firstly, with these responses in mind, will the Council commit to applying the same approach to its own decisions, particularly ones of this nature, as it intends to apply to all new outsourcing contracts.  Namely that of ‘full disclosure’, except where a strong case can be made that the information would seriously compromise confidentiality laws, such as ‘data protection’. Secondly, he asked that, when considering any exemptions the Council put the public interest above the interest of all other parties where feasible and be prepared to support that in the scrutiny process.

In connection with the final question, concerning putting the public interest ahead of other considerations, Councillor Julie Dore stated that Members of the Council were elected to represent the public interest, although consideration of what was in the ‘public interest’ was subjective.

Councillor Dore then responded to a question raised earlier in the meeting by Mr O’Hagan concerning public questions. She stated that public questions at Council meetings took place only because the Council chose to include provision for them in its Constitution. They were not mandatory. Members of the public could also ask questions in other fora. There was a wide range of public engagement activity and people could also contact the Council in writing. Cabinet in the Community sessions were also being held in different areas of the City.

Councillor Dore stated that she could not see a problem with the Council producing advice for people concerning how they can ask questions in different fora and what people should do if the response which they had received to a question was not acceptable to them.

4.2.4

Public Questions Concerning the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Evidence to Support an Answer and Social Engineering

Martin Brighton asked: does this Council support the principle of Innocent Until Proved Guilty, and, if it does, how does it ensure that this principle is upheld.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore responded that she really did aim to answer Mr Brighton’s questions in the best way that she could. If the question was vague, she was not able to give a detailed answer. She did fully support the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If there were circumstances where this was not the case, she asked that this be brought to the Council’s attention and that information could then be reviewed.

Secondly, Mr Brighton stated that the Cabinet Member for Housing gave a robust and unequivocal answer to what he described as a very difficult question at the last Full Council (Question 6). He asked if the evidence upon which that question was predicated was published, would the Cabinet Member be prepared to reconsider his position.

The Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, Councillor Harry Harpham, responded that the question which Mr Brighton referred to concerned the extent of trust for the Council’s Chief Executive and whilst he stated that this was a “difficult question” this had to be set in context. He confirmed that he had no reason whatsoever to doubt the response which he gave and that he trusted the Chief Executive implicitly.

Thirdly, Mr Brighton asked: does this Council support the use of social engineering tactics by council officers, followed by misrepresentations of those being manipulated? If not, and if presented with the evidence, what is the Council’s course of action?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore responded that Mr Brighton should bring to the Council’s attention any issue of concern where he felt that he had been misrepresented or action had been taken which he did not feel was right. The Council would take action according to the circumstances, for example if it was a grievance or a matter concerning data protection.

4.2.5

Public Question Concerning Deprivation

Martin Brighton asked: why are the most deprived areas of Sheffield, 15 years ago still the most deprived areas today.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore responded that 15 years ago, and before that time (from the late 1970’s onwards), the inequalities in Sheffield were widening and the previous Government started the process of addressing the issue. The Council introduced a closing the gap policy in 2002 to reduce inequalities, and areas of the City were regenerated, although some criticism was received of investment into those areas of the City.

Councillor Dore stated that the present Government does not believe in reducing inequalities but the Council would do what it could. The Fairness Commission had been established as a cross party body, to make Sheffield a fair City.

4.2.6

Public Question Concerning Inactivity

Martin Brighton stated that, using the Freedom of Information Act, the organisation UKactive produced a national rankings list for inactivity, noting the links between individual inactivity in areas of social deprivation, and consequent premature deaths. Sheffield is 102nd out of 150 nationally. He asked: what is this Council doing to remedy this.

The Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, Councillor Mary Lea responded that there was a correlation between a lack of physical activity and ill health and that activity does improve health.

The ‘Move More’ Strategy was shortly to be submitted to the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Board. It was recognised that activity was not only about sport, but also concerned incorporating physical activity as part of a daily routine. The Council would promote physical activity in schools and as part of the Olympic legacy and in relation to the forthcoming Tour de France.

The Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, Councillor Isobel Bowler, stated that UKactive was one of the lobby groups promoting physical activity. It was known that people were not physically active enough for the benefit of their health. The guideline was of five periods of 30 minutes exercise each week. The Council was addressing concerns relating to inactivity through the ‘Move More’ strategy, working with Activity Sheffield and Sport England had also invested in specific programmes. One problem was the quality of data, which presently used a sample of 500 people and better data and evidence was required, particularly concerning which interventions were most successful. The strategy was also to consider targeted interventions. The Move More Board included representatives from the Universities, the NHS and the City Council.