Agenda item

5.1

Petition in respect of Fir Vale School Admissions Consultation

Nargis Thabet submitted a petition, containing 8 signatures, against the proposal from Fir Vale School in relation to its admissions policy of fair banding as opposed to the current policy of children attending the school who live in catchment. She commented that the policy would impact negatively on the children’s education and would put added pressure on these children to travel to schools that were not in catchment and thereby putting them under increased emotional pressure at a time when they needed security to live and thrive.

She further commented that the school had so far failed to respond clearly to the petitioners’ request for an open consultation despite their repeated requests. She therefore requested that the Council scrutinise the proposed policy carefully and work to protect the educational needs of children in the area.

In referring the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, reported that the Council was aware of the proposals and would be closely monitoring them.

Councillor Jackie Drayton thanked Ms Thabet for submitting the petition and stated that the Council adopted a common admissions policy across the City which all schools complied with. Fir Vale School wanted to adopt a different admissions policy which would be based on ability, which went against the City wide policy.

She stated that she, as Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Families and Jayne Ludlam as the Executive Director of the Children, Young People and Families portfolio, had written to the Headteacher of the school expressing the Council’s concerns at the proposed changes to the admissions policy. Councillor Drayton added that she had also written to the school as a local Elected Member, to raise hers and the communities concerns and calling on her to organise a public meeting in the school, to explain the proposals and the implications for the young people in Burngreave.  She stated, she had not received any reply so far.  She added that the headteacher had written to feeder schools in the area informing them of proposed changes. However, she had not written to inform local Councillors, the Member of Parliament for the area or the Council of these proposals.

Fir Vale School was at the heart of the local community and people showed a great desire to want to send their children to the school. The Council believed that the proposed policy was divisive. The City Wide Learning Body were currently instigating a review of the admissions policy across the City and it was hoped that all schools would sign up to any changes. Councillor Drayton again thanked Ms Thabet for submitting the petition and informed her that any information or petitions received would form part of the Council’s appeal to the school.

5.2

Public Questions in respect of the Housing Revenue Account, TARA’s, Policies of the Current Administration and the Bedroom Tax

Mr Martin Brighton submitted 7 questions in relation to the Housing Revenue Account, a group in the South West area, TARA’s, policies of the current administration and the bedroom tax. Councillor Julie Dore reported that written responses would be provided to Mr Brighton’s questions.

5.3

Public Question in respect of the Living Wage

Mr Nigel Slack referred to a recent report in the Times Educational Supplement detailing the pay award to one of the Vice Chancellors of the University of Sheffield of 39% at the same time as resisting the implementation of the living wage, offering its staff 1% and attempting to drive down wages and conditions for the lowest paid in its catering ‘special purpose vehicle’ Unicus, by offering terms and conditions below those of current staff. Mr Slack believed this was against the Sheffield First 'Fairness Framework’ guidelines to which, as a member organisation, the University of Sheffield had contributed. He therefore asked will the Council be making an ‘open and continuous case to the University of Sheffield that this was unacceptable behaviour from a member organisation and a partner?

In response, Councillor Julie Dore stated that the Fairness Commission had been Chaired by Professor Alan Walker and had agreed that it would meet periodically to monitor the progress and outcomes of its recommendations which had been circulated to the appropriate bodies. In respect of the living wage, the Sheffield Executive Board had written to all partner organisations requesting that they implement the living wage. The Board would consider who was and wasn’t implementing the living wage and consider what actions to take. Where an organisation said that they could not afford to implement the living wage but the Executive Board believed they could, this would be followed up.

5.4

Public Question in respect of the Bedroom Tax

Mr Nigel Slack referred to a decision taken by Judicial Tribunals in Bolton and Monmouth which for the first time had defined the word bedroom for the purposes of the ‘Bedroom Tax’ legislation and rejected the premise that a bedroom is any spare upstairs room or even a room specified as a bedroom in any description of the property. A bedroom is defined by its use as a bedroom. He therefore asked what impact will this have on the way the Council now administers the ‘Bedroom Tax’ and had any consideration been made of the potential impact on the Council’s budget of the need to potentially inspect all properties currently expected to fall within the legislation or the potential cost of mass appeals against decisions of the Council to apply the ‘Bedroom Tax’?

Councillor Julie Dore reported that, unfortunately, Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, was absent from the meeting as he would have been able to provide a more in depth answer to Mr Slack as Councillor Dore was aware that a lot of work was being done investigating the implications of the ‘Bedroom Tax’. However, she believed that it was an evil tax and the Council were looking at every possible way to alleviate the impact on those affected. She would pass the question on to Councillor Harry Harpham who would provide a written response.

5.5

Petition in respect of Libraries

Mr William Hiorns submitted a petition, containing 8 signatures, calling on the Council to reconsider the choice of operating model for the future of libraries in the City and undertake to keep all libraries in the City open. He believed that the policy would impact on the most vulnerable in society. Although he was aware that a needs assessment had been undertaken, he did not believe the needs of particular groups had been recognised.

Mr Hiorns did not believe that other operating models had been considered at the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee meeting held on 18 February 2014. The fact that so many concerns had been expressed from members of the public showed that the policy was flawed. Officers had not explained the methodology behind the support for the proposed operating model and the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee had not allowed questioners to set the context behind their questions. In conclusion Mr Hiorns asked what members of the public needed to do to see the operating model being discussed in an open and transparent manner and who was responsible for the overall governance of the Council?

In response Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, reported that he had discussed the proposals in the Council Chamber at a number of public meetings. He had attended the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee, referred to by the petitioner, to answer questions. He believed that the Chair of that meeting had facilitated discussion well. 13 different models had been looked at before a decision had been made on the preferred operating model. The reasoning behind that had been made explicit in the Cabinet report. He believed that the Council was meeting its legal requirements to offer a comprehensive and efficient library service.

5.6

Petition in respect of Libraries

Ruth Woodhouse submitted a petition, containing 15 signatures, calling on the City Council to address the crisis in library services by making a fair plan for all of Sheffield’s libraries and committing to a lasting, city-wide collaboration with local community groups at every library. A mix of librarians, library staff and volunteers should be distributed and shared fairly to support the needs of all people who used the City’s libraries. The petitioners rejected the proposed 3 tier system where some libraries were allocated Council library staff while others were not. They believed that libraries without librarians could not succeed.

In response Councillor Mazher Iqbal reported that the Libraries Review commenced in July 2011. The consultation which took place in 2012 focused on how to attract non-library users to use the service against the background of a national trend of declining library usage. The Council’s budget for 2014/15, which was on the agenda for this meeting, would see cuts of £58m this year on top of £180m already cut from the budget. He stated that these cuts were unfair and disproportionate.

Councillor Iqbal trusted the advice given to him by officers which was evidenced in the report and included a technical appendix. It was incumbent on all local authorities to give consideration to equalities. However, it was clear that any reduction in the budget would have an impact on services. Councillor Iqbal believed that the proposed operating model met the requirement to provide a comprehensive and efficient service. There was nothing in the statute which stated the definition of comprehensive and efficient.

Fifteen business plans had been submitted to run libraries and the Council had made a financial commitment for the first 3 years to supporting those libraries run independently. Sheffield Futures had been commissioned to do targeted work in certain areas. An appendix to the report outlined in detail the consultation process and its outcome.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Library Staff

Hugh Cotton asked whether the Cabinet Member believed it was fair that the hubs and Central Library would have the use of 112 paid professional staff whilst the co-delivered and independent libraries, representing over 50% of libraries in the City, would only have 2 paid professional staff. Mr Cotton also asked, if the proposals were agreed, whether the Cabinet Member would keep an open mind and keep the position under review?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal responded that the 3 different categories of library had been consulted upon in the most recent consultation. He believed the operating model met the need to provide a comprehensive and efficient service. He had visited Broomhill and spoken to library users to seek their views.

80% of the budget for libraries was for staff and the proposals would see a reduction of 75 full time equivalent staff. There had been efforts made to try and keep all libraries running through ‘salami slicing’ hours, not filling staff vacancies etc. but the status quo could no longer continue. A guidance pack had been issued for community organisations thinking of submitting a business plan to run a library and a number of workshops had been held with partner organisations.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Library Closures

Neil Metcalfe commented that libraries provided a wonderful service to the community and questioned why any needed to be closed and why the Council would not stand up to the Government when they were cutting budgets?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the Council was extremely dependent on Government funding and if they cut funding by half the Council’s budget would be halved. The Council had now been forced into making extremely difficult decisions where no service, apart from safeguarding, could be completely protected. It was apparent that it would be impossible to keep all libraries open all of the time.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Future Options for Library Services

Akeem Balogur asked whether the Council had considered opening up the library network to allow outside organisations, such as social enterprises to run them?

In response Councillor Mazher Iqbal stated that on the back of the public consultation, the Leader of the Council had issued a call to action which asked organisations to come forward to see if they had any ideas of how the Council could work in partnership. 27 organisations had responded and their responses had played an important part when considering the operating model. The associate libraries would remain on the IT system and the catalogue system would remain in all libraries.

5.10

Public Question in respect of Volunteer Staff

Dorothy Wilson referred to Burngreave Library, which had two part time staff, and proposals to move into Sorby House and use volunteer staff. She commented that a number of people in Burngreave already did volunteer work as well as paid work and she did not believe there was the capacity available to provide volunteer staff to work in the library.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal responded that with the £180m cuts which the Council had been forced to make 1200 staff had left the authority and a further 600 would leave in the next municipal year. Because the administration recognised the inequalities in the City, the proposals of the Fairness Commission would be applied. The Council had met with a group in Burngreave and discussions would continue as to how to take things forward. He recognised the tremendous pressure being put on communities and commented that the Council would work to try and retain services where they could.

5.11

Public Consultation in respect of Library Consultation

Jayne Finlay referred to a recent announcement nationally that William Sieghart had been commissioned to carry out an independent report on the role/future of libraries in England. This consultation ended in March. She therefore asked if the Council would be willing to wait to hear the results of this nationwide consultation before making a final decision on Sheffield’s Libraries?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal confirmed that he was aware of the national consultation. It would be important to feed in to the national consultation what we had learned from the Sheffield consultation over the last few years. Discussions had been held with the Arts Council but that did not bring forward any extra information and no additional resources would be allocated.

Councillor Julie Dore added that, initially when the Government announced its austerity programme, it said that it would front load the cuts to the initial years of the programme. The most recent announcements appeared to contradict that. She suggested that the national consultation may be due to the fact that the Government now realise the damage the programme was doing to public services. She welcomed the consultation but didn’t expect any final conclusions to lead to additional resources.

5.12

Public Question in respect of the Budget

Kathy Whittaker referred to a statement from Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, at the meeting of Full Council held on 5 February 2014 asking where the public would make the cuts if they had the choice. In Broomhill the public had found a leading accountant from a Sheffield firm who had offered to look over the books. This request had been refused and Ms Whittaker asked why this was the case?

Councillor Ben Curran responded that the Council had nothing to hide. There was a well qualified finance team employed by the Council who had been trained in public sector finance. The accounts were audited by qualified auditors. If the Council were to accept the offer and other such offers this would take up a lot of officer time at a time when resources were tight.

Councillor Julie Dore added that the consultation originally started in 2011 when the Council became aware of the severity of the cuts. Every single household had received a letter asking for their views on where reductions should be made and there was a good response to this. Since then there had been a lot of consultation undertaken and focus groups. There had been two public sessions recently where major stakeholders were in attendance. The Council had also established a Business Advisory Panel who had been kept informed of the budget setting process. A decision had been made to protect children’s safeguarding from any cuts so, as a result, savings had to be found elsewhere. Despite the consultation and focus groups the Council had never heard of a more effective way to undertake the process.

5.13

Public Question in respect of Libraries

Chaz Lockett commented that he believed that Council could use funding from the reserves and renegotiate private contracts to obtain funding to keep all libraries in the City open. He therefore asked why the Council were not doing this and listening to the people?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal stated that the Council were not allowed to set an illegal budget. They relied heavily on the Government grant and the money received from Council Tax only accounted for 12% of the Council’s budget. The Council did challenge the Government where they could and had run a campaign for a Fair Deal for Sheffield and had visited 10 Downing Street to present a petition in that respect.

Councillor Julie Dore commented that if the Council set an illegal budget the Government would take over and the cuts would be far worse.

5.14

Public Question in respect of Library Staff

Louisa Walker stated that she believed that without trained library staff a library would not run effectively. If the proposed operating model was approved, she was concerned that this represented a two tiered service. She therefore asked if the Council would consider redistributing staff from the hub libraries to allow all people across the City the same access?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal confirmed that as part of the proposals a volunteer co-ordinator would be appointed to assist the 10 associate libraries. Buildings would be offered at peppercorn rent. Associate libraries would be able to decide whether they wanted to opt in or out of the catalogue system. Unfortunately, resources were not available to employ staff at the associate libraries.

A number of workshops would be held and community organisations would be invited to attend. Support from the Council would always be available. If at some point in the future additional resources became available, the Council could look again at putting additional resources into libraries. If the Council reduced hours of libraries any further it wouldn’t be doing them or the community justice.

5.15

Public Question in respect of Libraries

Marcus O’Hagan commented that he did not believe that Councillor Iqbal had answered questions at previous meetings which the public had put to him or responded to a request for a review of the answers and this was creating frustration. He therefore asked if an associate library was considered to have failed would this be brought back under Council control or left to be closed? He believed that the Council must have a contingency plan in place and without this the proposals should not be agreed.

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she believed that Councillor Iqbal had provided clear answers to questions which had been put to him. It can often be difficult to understand why an extra £1.6m cannot be found to maintain the status quo. If an associate library was seen to be failing it would depend on the circumstances at the time how the Council would respond. Contingencies had been put in place through the offer of funding for three years to support them. It was hoped that the Council could convince the Government of the need for further funding within that three year period.

5.16

Public Question in respect of Libraries

Ruth Woodhouse asked the following four questions in respect of libraries:-

·         Could the Council note her request for more time to consider and respond to the proposals published in the Cabinet report?

·         How will the Council eliminate discrimination given that it wouldn’t be possible with the proposed three tiered model?

·         How will school visits continue city-wide without staff, and what measures will the Council take to avoid the loss of this essential service across the City?

·         Many Sheffield libraries now manage on a 21 hour a week. It is not ideal, but also by cutting hours elsewhere would retain a library service for all, which could be extended again later. Is it not time to explore this alternative model, so we share staff and the burden of cuts, and support vulnerable groups across the City?

In response to the first question, Councillor Iqbal commented that the Council had been working on the review since July 2011. The proposals in the report had been consulted upon for a 12 week period and from that an additional recommendation of additional funding to support the associate libraries for 3 years had been agreed. He therefore believed sufficient time had been given for the proposals to be considered. There had been opportunities within the consultation period for people to ask any technical questions which they didn’t understand.

In relation to the second question, Councillor Iqbal commented that he had already answered this previously. In respect of the third question, Councillor Iqbal reported that the schools’ library service was a traded service which 71% of schools had signed up to. Park Community Action Group had submitted a business case and the Council would work closely with them.

Councillor Jackie Drayton added that many schools had their own libraries. However, she still believed it was important that children and young people were able to visit a library. Visiting Central Library, for example, may be the only opportunity which a child has to visit the centre of the City.

Regarding the last question, Councillor Iqbal commented that the Council believed that the spirit of the people of Sheffield would ensure that libraries stayed open. The Council would work to support this through the pledge to support associate libraries for three years. The Cabinet report referred to 13 different models and after careful consideration and taking into account the outcome of the consultation he believed that the proposed operating model was the fairest for all.

Councillor Julie Dore further commented that because the Council knew the funding available for 2014/15 and a good indication of funding for 2015/16 they were able to confirm funding for co-dependents for 2 years. In the meantime the Council would fight to keep libraries open. She was confident that hub libraries would be sustainable. If the Council had decided to split funding across all 27 libraries she could not have guaranteed that all would have remained open.

5.17

Public Question in respect of Libraries

Nigel Slack asked given that one of the organisations interested in running an associate library was a faith group, what safeguards were to be put in place to ensure that that part of the library service remained secular and comprehensive in its offer to the public of Sheffield? Mr Slack also asked whether there would be a mechanism that allowed for the City Council to resume control of any associate library that failed the standards that the City expected and what would be the definitions of those standards and therefore of failure?

Councillor Iqbal confirmed that there were policies in place to ensure that no one group discriminated over another. The faith group concerned said that they would provide the service rather than preach their faith. In terms of the definition of failure and standards it would depend on the circumstances at that time. As part of the initial business planning process the Council had held a number of different workshops and officers had met with each individual organisation. The Business Plan needed to ensure that the library would be sustainable and viable in the future.