Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

(a)          Petition Requesting the Council to Re-evaluate the Choice of Operating Model Chosen for the Library Service

The Council received a petition containing 8 signatures and requesting the Council to re-evaluate the operating model chosen for the Library Service.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mr Wil Hiorns.

He stated that the Equalities Impact Assessment listed particular groups that would be highly affected by library closures. Many people were not able to independently travel to an alternative library and the Home Library Service and Schools Library Service would not fill the gap in terms of access to the service.

Mr Hiorns stated that the Library Review and Scrutiny Committee did not consider the operating model. He stated that the consultation had indicated that 61 percent of people were unhappy with the proposals for the Library Service and he expressed concerns about the influence of the consultation outcome upon the decision and the extent of consultation which took place with children. He stated that people were still asking for replies to questions previously put to the Council and asked for a re-evaluation of the choice of operating model.

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

(b)          Petition Requesting the Council to Change the Library Model Proposal

The Council received a petition containing 5 signatures and requesting the Council to change the library model proposal.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Ruth Woodhouse. She expressed concern at the effect of library proposals on children and stated that the survey of young users had not been used to influence the proposals. Both teachers and libraries had a role in familiarising children with libraries and giving them the confidence to use libraries.

Ruth Woodhouse stated that a petition was submitted concerning the retention of staff at the Park Library. The group which was planning to run the Park Library was not planning to include the use of a librarian as part of their bid and would charge schools for the use of the Library. There was concern that the groups which planned to run libraries had insufficient knowledge of how to work with children. Whilst the Central Library was put forward as an alternative library, it was 55 minutes’ walk from the schools affected in the vicinity of Park Library.

Substantial petitions had been submitted concerning the 16 Libraries affected by the proposals, requesting the Council to challenge the planned model for Community libraries which, she stated, would affect access to the Library Service for children and others.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion. Councillor Iqbal stated that it there were a large number of people affected by the disproportionate cuts imposed by the Government and local government would be substantially affected by further cuts to funding in future years. It was important that the Council put in place resources and ensure that it was listening to people and could change its approach. 

The Park Library had worked in its local community for many years. The Park Library Action Group had submitted a business plan and there would be up to 15 hours of community development librarian support available each week. Proposals concerning the Library Service had been taken to the Scrutiny Committee twice. It was important that the Council provided a comprehensive and efficient Library Service. The Council had applied the principles of the Fairness Commission in respect of the proposals concerning the Library Service and it was important that inequalities were addressed.

Councillor Iqbal stated that the Scrutiny Committee had been chaired so as to ensure balance and provide the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals. It was also important that the Council had opportunity to hear what local people have said. It was evident that people understood the issues involved and relating to the Library Service. The City needed a viable and sustainable Library Service.

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Travel Passes for Disabled People

i.

Dawn Saunders stated that, with a bus pass plus one, anyone could travel with her and was able to travel for free. The plus one pass was also valid regionally. However, this concession was to be removed from her and her companion and she would have to reimburse her companion for journeys which they took in future. People who have additional needs when they travelled also often had less alternative options and had to use the bus.

ii

Eric Andrews asked how much was the saving being made by the removal of the concessionary travel pass?

iii

Frank Gardner stated that he was totally blind and he worked and needed to travel before 9.30am. Whilst he did understand the budget cuts, his concerns about the removal of the concessionary pass were that an ordinary ticket did not provide information which could be read by somebody who is blind as they did not include braille and he was concerned, as a vulnerable person, for his safety. He depended on braille and speech as methods of communication. The pass for the visually impaired carried an eye symbol and it helped to protect both his safety and dignity.

iv

Jean Taylor asked why people were not informed much earlier of the potential change. The numbers of people attending to express their views would have been greater had more notice been given of the changes to concessionary travel. She felt that the change had been pushed through more quickly that it might have been.

v

A question was asked on behalf of David White concerning how disabled and equalities legislation was addressed when the travel pass for trains in South Yorkshire was being taken away. He referred to an increase in social isolation which may result from the changes, together with the indignity of trying to use cash when buying a ticket. He was a member of the Yorkshire Cricket team and trained with them, something which he would not be able to afford if he no longer has a travel pass for the train.

vi

Ray Johnson asked how many Members of the Council had to use public transport.

vii

Pauline Steeples asked why people were not being given the option of paying a contribution towards the cost of a travel pass and she stated that she would not be able to afford to travel to see her family, if the concession was removed.

viii

David Damms asked why the bus passes were being taken away. He stated that he was disabled and his hobby was trainspotting, travelling to Wakefield and Doncaster and these journeys would be affected if the passes ceased.

ix

Jules Jones referred to mobility passes for disabled children and the decision to limit their use until after 9.30am. This would affect children with disabilities who needed to travel to school, which started at 8.20am. She asked the Council to reconsider the proposed 9.30am start time for the mobility passes and she expressed concern that there had not been adequate consultation of this matter and that the decision may constitute discrimination.  

x

Steve Hambleton, representing Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind, stated that the decision to remove local travel concessions was made by the South Yorkshire Passenger Integrated Transport Authority, which would receive a reduced levy from the local authorities in South Yorkshire resulting from budget cuts. He stated that the impact of the change would include additional demand pressure on social services. Limited information was available from the Passenger Transport Executive concerning the cost of concessions. Disabled pass holders represented 12 percent of the total number of pass holders and he believed the annual cost of concessions was £600K and the cost of funding the concessions for disabled people in Sheffield would be approximately £30-35K. This cost was negligible compared to the total reduction in the Transport Authority levy. He asked the Council to consider restoring the concessions for disabled people in Sheffield.

xi

A question was asked on behalf of Adam Butcher concerning consultation which was undertaken by the Transport Authority and it was commented that it was vulnerable people who would be affected by the change to concessionary passes.

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, Councillor Leigh Bramall, responded to the questions. He thanked the questioners and campaigners. As background, he stated that the Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) took the decision concerning concessionary passes. Members of the City Council, including himself, were also representatives on the ITA. The South Yorkshire local authorities pay a levy to the ITA. As a result of the funding cuts from central government, councils, including Sheffield City Council, had reduced the amount of levy which they paid to the ITA. If this reduction was not made, then the Council would need to cut its own services even further.

A saving of £8 million to the ITA’s budget was proposed in 2014/15. A large proportion of the budget was ring-fenced so the element of discretion was quite small. The choice was to reduce local enhancements or, alternatively, to make cuts to other areas - for example by increasing the price of bus travel for children and young people, removing the enhancements that help people to travel for employment purposes or to cease tendered bus services. The view was taken that it was better to reduce enhancements, rather than to cut the tendered bus service. Councillor Bramall stated that, unfortunately, the funding cuts were likely to continue and further proposals to make cuts may need to be made in the future.

The Passenger Transport Executive had undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment and consultation, in relation to which there were 19 representative groups and the Transport Executive would have further information available. The consultation asked what people would prioritise and people had said that that they would rather retain bus services and loose the element of free travel before 9.30am.  Councillor Bramall stated that the proposal was not necessarily desirable and it would have an impact on people.

Councillor Bramall stated that just nine (including South Yorkshire) out of 89 transport authorities gave enhancements to rail travel and the enhancements to travel schemes had reduced considerably since 2010. 75 percent of local authorities offered enhancements to national schemes, although the number once more had reduced since 2010. Derbyshire, North Nottinghamshire and West Yorkshire did not offer concessionary passes before 9.30am, according to the Department for Transport. Whilst some other areas would retain the pre-9.30am concession, there was also evidence that tendered bus services were being reduced in those areas. He pointed out that the local enhancement scheme in South Yorkshire had been the most generous outside London.

The Council was working on a scheme to provide for children with a disability that needed to travel to school, recognising that they had special needs over and above other groups.  Councillor Bramall confirmed that the carer’s pass from 9.30 am to 11.00pm would remain. The concessionary scheme for disabled people would remain from 9.30am until 11.00pm. However, it was not affordable to continue to provide a local enhancement.

The Passenger Transport Executive was investing in audio equipment and announcements on key bus routes and drivers were trained in relation to accessibility. In response to the question concerning elected Members’ use of public transport, Councillor Bramall stated he did not know about other elected Members, but speaking for himself, he used the bus, car and cycled. In relation to people making a contribution to the scheme, the level of savings required meant that would not help to achieve the required amount of savings.

There was not a national requirement for any concessionary train travel to be funded locally. Whilst, the journey time may take longer, people could use the bus as an alternative.

The Council was looking at a scheme to provide for disabled children and young people to travel to school. The ITA did undertake consultation and there was no suggestion that the decision had been rushed through. The annual saving to the ITA through the removal of locally funded concessionary travel on trains was £329K and from alignment of bus and tram concessionary times to that of the national scheme, the saving was £300K.

He believed that the calculation which was presented by Mr Hambleton concerning the cost of retaining concessionary travel on buses between 9.00am and 11.00pm was not correct and the actual cost would be likely to be much higher. The Council was looking at mitigating the worst impacts of the decision and proposals would be made in due course.

3.2.2

Public Questions Concerning Library Services

i

Dermot Gleeson asked what was preventing the Council from committing some professional paid staff to each of the independent libraries and restoring some degree of fairness and efficiency in the distribution of resources.

ii

Pauline Rosser stated that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reports on library closures stated that “we would be concerned if libraries were closed or their services disproportionately reduced, just to save money”. In reference to this, she asked if the Council would reconsider its proposals for libraries.

iii

Gemma Short asked what contingency plans the Council had in place in the libraries’ budget for if voluntarily run libraries fail or get into difficulty.

iv

Marcus O’Hagan stated that the Council sets high standards of conduct and says that it will not set an 'illegal' budget. He asked: how this can be the case when questions regarding the library proposals remain unanswered or are answered in a dismissive manner.  He asked whether this was a neglect of duty. Mr O’Hagan also expressed concerns regarding the consultation process and given these concerns asked how can the budget be lawful?

Mr O’Hagan also asked if a volunteer breaks the law and/or this leads to a safeguarding issue, who will be responsible. He asked for details of all advice given on this matter to be provided, for example if the Council had obtained legal advice from outside its own legal officers. Finally, he asked where can amelioration of the risks attributable to having non-professionals be found in the Council’s Annual Audit.

v

Wil Hiorns stated that the Library Review document did not include much regarding strategy but mainly concerned tactics. He said that he was shocked by the statement which he said was made by the Cabinet Member, Councillor Iqbal, at the Scrutiny meeting, that he could probably still provide a comprehensive Library service if all the community libraries were closed and only the Central Library was kept open, albeit for 24 hours a day.

He asked whether the Council would pledge that this was ‘rock bottom’ for the Library Service or would there be more consultation and closures in future. The proposal stated that the Council wanted to keep all libraries open, so that there is the option to invest again in the future. He asked if the Council would pledge to publish a concrete plan for re-investment in the library service aligned to particular economic trigger conditions.

The Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, responded to the questions.

In relation to the provision of paid staff, he referred to the impact of Government funding cuts and the difficult decisions that the Council had to make as a result. Sheffield was one of the last local authorities to go through a library review and funding reductions to the library service. Nationally, over 400 libraries had closed over 4 years. There were no specific criteria as to what constituted a comprehensive and efficient library service. Information concerning the proposals was contained in the Cabinet report, a copy of which he could provide.

The Council had been fighting for a fair deal for Sheffield, including support for a petition containing 10,000 signatures. He stated that the cuts to local Government were both disproportionate and unfair, with more prosperous areas receiving relatively more resources. Nationally, councillors of different political party affiliations had also said that there should be no further funding cuts to local government.

In relation to the viability of libraries in the future, a number of workshops had taken place and he had also supported colleagues and organisations in seeking to keep libraries open. The business plans of groups wishing to run libraries should be viable and sustainable. Some 80 percent of the libraries’ budget related to staffing and there simply were not enough resources to continue to afford staffing at present levels.

The Council could not set an illegal budget as there would be intervention from the Government if that was the case. The Council wanted to protect communities and the most vulnerable people and was not neglecting its duty.

With regard to contingency, action would have to be taken at an appropriate time. In relation to safeguarding, there were policies, procedures and training for volunteers.

The Chief Executive commented that the Council would not do anything that would compromise its safeguarding responsibilities.

3.2.3

Public Questions Concerning Questions, Budget Cuts and Standing Up to Government

Peter Hartley asked if his questions to last full Council, Cabinet and Scrutiny Meetings could in future be recorded accurately in the minutes.

Secondly, he asked if the Council would still be making cuts in the budget when a Labour government is elected in 2015.

Thirdly, Mr Hartley asked when will the Council stand up to any government or will it remain servile and he referred to the harsh treatment which the Council was giving to the citizens of Sheffield.

Mr Hartley requested a written response to his questions

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Ben Curran, responded. He stated that people did not have to attend the Council meeting if they had questions, and they could put them in writing and by email. The minutes of meetings were approved and could be amended by Council. In relation to the budget cuts, the Council would do the best that it could with the resources that it was given and he did not have a crystal ball to enable him to see the future as regards funding. He assured Mr Hartley that the Council would do the best that it could, regardless of the party in government.

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning the Bedroom Tax

Martin Brighton asked the Council to please provide responses to the following statements, indicating where justification may be found in documents:

The term ‘spare room subsidy’ is an artificial device created to extract money from the poorest in society. Using this government’s argument, if people on benefits have satellite, phone, internet, pets, drink, smoke, then their benefits should be pro-rata reduced on the grounds that benefits should not be a subsidy for talking, nicotine, learning, alcohol, compassion, avoiding loneliness, having a TV, etc. It is argued that any implementation of the Bedroom Tax is an unlawful inclusion in the Annual Budget.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, Councillor Harry Harpham, responded that a future Labour Government would scrap the ‘bedroom tax’. Lots of people had come to Council to speak about it and he had not heard a defence or anyone in favour of the measures, except for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning Housing Revenue Account (HRA)

Martin Brighton asked the Council to please provide responses to the following statements, indicating where justification may be found in documents:

He stated that three days ago Housing minister Kris Hopkins directed that council landlords that mis-use HRA money will have to pay it back to the Government. This council wants to create 600 more council homes, using HRA money. Whilst a noble cause, the decision was made without prior consultation and consent of tenants, and affects the debt management plans, so the inclusion to finance the scheme could be unlawful.

There are also several other projects where use of HRA money does not exclusively benefit tenants, one project has been soundly rejected by tenants, and in fact these would be more appropriately financed by the department that benefits, so inclusion in the Annual budget could be deemed unlawful.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, Councillor Harry Harpham, responded that, if the HRA was misused, then the Council should pay the HRA money back. The creation of 600 homes in the City had been proposed to the City Wide Housing Forum and the Tenant Engagement Forum and was something which had been widely welcomed in the City. It was the first time that a Council administration would have been able to create that number of homes in 30 years. The HRA was considered by the Council at its meeting on 5^th February 2014.  Councillor Harpham stated that the Administration would ensure that the HRA monies were used for the betterment of tenants in the City.

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit

Martin Brighton asked the Council to please provide responses to the following statements, indicating where justification may be found in documents:

Following new disclosures using the FoIA (Freedom of Information Act), it is disclosed that not only are local authorities disinclined to pay the alleged pro-rata share of the millions of alleged losses, but that there is no evidence to fully account for those losses. There is no accounting for these losses in the Annual Budget, so the Annual Budget could be said to be unlawful.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Ben Curran, responded that he had mandated the Council’s Chief Executive to take steps regarding the debts relating to South Yorkshire Trading Standards. The negotiations relating to this matter were moving in the right direction and the issue was covered on the balance sheet. The budget presented to Council was  legal.   

3.2.7

Public Question Concerning Common Purpose

Mr Brighton stated that, with thanks to the Council officer, it was revealed that this Council has resumed expenditure on Common Purpose, despite directions from Eric Pickles to cease. He asked where is the arguably unlawful projection of expenditure on Common Purpose in the Annual Accounts.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Ben Curran, responded that the Council was a responsible employer and provided training for its employees. There was no contract request to use Common Purpose for any work at the moment.