Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of the Number 66 Bus Service

Mr Barry Bellamy thanked Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, for his work in helping to restore the number 66 bus service from High Green to Rotherham. However, given all the hard work how was the service allowed to be withdrawn in the first place?

Councillor Leigh Bramall commented that he had not been happy about the withdrawal of the service. A large part of the route was in Rotherham and as such, and because of human error, Sheffield had not been made aware of the change to the service. Under the Bus Partnership Agreement minor amendments could be made to routes without informing Councillors but Councillor Bramall did not consider this change to be a minor amendment and should have been referred to Members in Sheffield for comment. He found it unacceptable that, considering the reaction to the Sheffield Bus Partnership Agreement, the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive did not feel it necessary to inform Sheffield about the change.

5.2

Public Question in respect of AMEY works in High Green

Barry Bellamy asked about a number of works undertaken by AMEY within the High Green area. In response, Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, agreed to arrange a meeting with Mr Bellamy to discuss the works being undertaken in the High Green area.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Sheltered Housing and Social Care

Barry Bellamy commented that, through his local Ward Councillor, Councillor Adam Hurst, he had been attempting to arrange a meeting with Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, and officers regarding policies which he considered were putting vulnerable adults at risk. Given recent events he believed this meeting was more important than ever.

Councillor Mary Lea commented that she had not been aware that a meeting had been attempted to be arranged to discuss the issue. A meeting could be arranged and she would discuss this with Mr Bellamy and Councillor Adam Hurst.

5.4

Public Question in respect of the Demolition of the Cart and Horse Public House, High Green

Barry Bellamy stated that when Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health, rejected a proposal to designate the Cart and Horse Public House, High Green as a building of community interest some of the information used to make this decision had been incorrect. If Councillor Iqbal knew this information was incorrect why did he reject the proposal and if he didn’t know the information was incorrect why was this the case? Mr Bellamy requested a meeting with Councillor Iqbal to discuss the matter.

Councillor Iqbal confirmed that he had agreed the decision to reject the proposal and this had been published on the Council’s website. He agreed to hold a meeting with Mr Bellamy and requested that Mr Bellamy email him the inaccuracies he believed were contained in the report used to make the decision prior to the meeting being held.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Libraries

Mr William Hiorns referred to a letter sent from the Secretary of State, Ed Vaizey, dated 9^th September, asking a number of questions in respect of the Libraries Review Needs Analysis. Mr Vaizey had also requested that the Council did not implement the proposed changes to the Library Services until October 31^st when he would determine whether to order a local inquiry. Therefore, Mr Hiorns asked whether the Council had yet responded to the Secretary of State in respect of his request to delay implementation? Mr Hiorns also asked when the Council would share that response with the impacted stakeholders in Sheffield, such as Library Services staff and the volunteer groups who were working to meet the 29 September deadline for handover?

Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, confirmed that conversations had taken place with Mr Vaizey’s office to discuss the issues raised.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal acknowledged that he had received the letter from Mr Vaizey’s office, dated 9 September, asking for further information and the Council had provided a response to this which he believed answered the questions raised. This would shortly be published on the Council’s website. Councillor Iqbal confirmed that the implementation of the proposals would not be delayed. The Minister had not taken into account all the issues and the progress that had been made towards implementation. Any delay would not be in the interest of stakeholders. Cabinet had agreed a timetable for implementation. Staff had taken voluntary retirement or redundancy or been served a redundancy notice. The Council were therefore working to a deadline of 29 September and a response would be drafted and circulated to all relevant community groups.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Libraries

Marcus O’Hagan also referred to the letter sent by Ed Vaizey M.P. He had been amazed by the response of Councillor Iqbal to the previous question that it was not in the interests of community groups to delay implementation. Some groups had not yet seen lease agreements that they would be required to sign in two weeks. How could this be seen as reasonable?

Mr O’Hagan further commented that he believed Councillor Iqbal had been asked a number of questions in recent months which he had not provided answers for. The community groups had agreed to take on responsibility for the running of libraries as a last resort to prevent closure. Mr O’Hagan believed the Council were setting up libraries to fail. He had asked Councillor Iqbal if libraries would be shut if they were failing and had not received an answer.

Mr O’Hagan then commented that he had questions outstanding from January, February and March this year which had not been answered despite requests from the Information Commissioner to do so. He then asked how the Council would support libraries who struggled financially as Mr O’Hagan did not believe that the three year financial package offered would sustain these libraries in the long term?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she had been in many meeting where questions had been asked in respect of the libraries review and she believed that all questions had been answered as well as the questions raised by Ed Vaizey M.P. Mr Vaizey’s letter had been responded to and discussions had been held with the Minister’s office. This would not be the end of the dialogue with the Minister’s office. Mr O’Hagan would be sent a copy of the response to Mr Vaizey. It was the Council’s aim to be as transparent as possible and not let the public have to rely on Freedom of Information requests and the response to Mr Vaizey would be published on the Council’s website.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal commented that he wished to defend Council officers who had worked hard to deliver the right proposals to meet the legal requirement to provide a comprehensive and efficient service. The correspondence from the Information Commissioner concerned timing. The questions Mr O’Hagan had raised at both Council and Cabinet had been responded to in writing. Councillor Iqbal could provide further clarity of required.

Mr Vaizey had been aware of the Council’s proposals which were presented to Cabinet six months ago in February 2014 and Councillor Iqbal was puzzled as to why he was now asking for the proposals to be delayed when a lot of hard work had been put into implementation. Everyone was aware of the cuts facing the Council. Councillor Iqbal was grateful that community groups had come forward to offer to run libraries in the City. The Council had provided support in terms of lease agreements. It was not about what happened at the end of the three year funding it was about ensuring support to the groups was continual. A volunteer co-ordinator had been employed to offer support where required.

Councillor Dore suggested that a meeting take place with Mr O’Hagan to attempt to resolve the issue about unanswered questions. She requested that Mr O’Hagan provide any relevant correspondence with Councillor Iqbal or other relevant Members or officers prior to that meeting.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Member Code of Conduct

Mr Nigel Slack referred to an incident at the last Council Meeting, held on 3 September 2014, involving a Councillor and a member of the public which he found completely unacceptable. He therefore asked if the Council would be bringing this to the attention of the Monitoring Officer or were they waiting for a member of the public to do so?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that normally if a member of the public wished to make a complaint against a Councillor this should be done in writing and addressed to the Monitoring Officer. In the light of ongoing dialogue to improve transparency Councillor Dore believed that it was not always appropriate to ask a member of the public to put a complaint in writing before addressing a situation. Councillor Dore would refer this particular complaint to the Monitoring Officer if Mr Slack was prepared to make a statement. Mr Slack confirmed that he would be prepared to make a statement. Councillor Dore confirmed that she would therefore refer Mr Slack’s complaint to the Monitoring Officer on his behalf.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Transport for Young People

Nigel Slack referred to discussions he had recently had with friends in respect of the recent news about child abuse in Rotherham where he had been told that relatives of his friends had a vulnerable child and Rotherham Council had offered them un-chaperoned taxi travel for their child. His friends had refused and were now thinking they had a lucky escape. He therefore asked whether Sheffield offered such taxi travel? If so was it chaperoned? And were the drivers CRB checked?

Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families reported that CRB checks were now called DBS checks. The majority of children and young people who required transportation travelled in in-house vehicles which were predominantly minibuses suitable for disabled users. All drivers had a DBS check. This covered 1100 children. 172 children travelled in taxis which were provided by companies on a list of approved providers. These companies had to go through a rigorous checking process which involved insurance and DBS checks.

Escorts were provided for children based on an individual assessment of their needs. This may be an in-house provider or taxi company who had the relevant checks and balances in place. An assessment was currently being undertaken of all services provided particularly concerning the Jay report in Rotherham. A meeting would be held with officers to scope out any potential risks of the taxi companies used by the Council. Further details were now being worked out to ensure the correct checks were in place and were being applied correctly and that colleagues and external providers were sharing information appropriately. The Council could not sit on their laurels and would always look at policies and procedures that were in place. Other young people may use transportation through the Short Breaks scheme and the Council would ensure the appropriate checks were in place in this instance.

Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, added that she was responsible for Licensing Policy and had previously been a member of the Licensing Committee. The safety of the travelling public in taxis was the Council’s responsibility. Anybody who applied for a licence had to declare driving and criminal offences and DVLA and criminal records were checked. If there were concerns the Licensing Committee reviewed the application. If a serious complaint was received from a member of the public regarding a licensed driver the licence would be reviewed by the Licensing Committee. The Council could not be complacent about safety and if a member of the public ever had a bad experience with a licensed driver this should be reported to the Licensing section of the Council.

One of the issues of concern was that if a driver has a licence refused or removed they can appeal to magistrates and have it reinstated. In addition a driver licensed by another authority can operate as a private hire in the City. Therefore not all private hire drivers in Sheffield have been through the Council’s procedures, and were not licensed by Sheffield City Council.

5.9

Public Question in respect of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Nigel Slack referred to a note on the City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) website which stated that they were to host a roadshow about the TTIP. Therefore, Mr Slack asked in the light of the continuing inclusion of NHS services in this treaty and the comments at Full Council by Councillor Mary Lea would the Council have anyone in attendance at the roadshow to talk about the potential problems of this treaty?

Councillor Julie Dore reported that she had sent an email to the Chair of the LEP on the issue. She was in agreement with the comment that an exemption was requested for the NHS and other public services and wanted the LEP to raise this when doing the roadshow. She would be meeting with the Chair of the LEP following the Cabinet meeting and would raise the issue again.

5.10

Public Question in respect of Transparency in Planning Decisions

Nigel Slack commented that he had received a reply from Councillor Leigh Bramall to his original question. This answer had highlighted the issue of transparency in planning decisions. It suggested that decisions could be made in private chats between developers and Councillors and he believed this was bad for transparency. He requested a meeting with Councillor Bramall and officers to discuss his concerns.

Councillor Bramall confirmed that he was happy to have a meeting with Mr Slack. He commented that there was a balance to be struck. There needed to be a way of negotiating with developers and coming to an agreement on minor elements. Final amendments were consulted on with a number of bodies. Councillor Bramall supported transparency, however and he welcomed a meeting with Mr Slack to discuss how this could be improved.

5.11

Public Question in respect of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Nigel Slack asked a question from Sheffield for Democracy in relation to the recent resignation of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner. Mr Slack asked whether the Council’s Police and Crime Panel Member could confirm whether the Panel would be meeting to appoint an interim Police and Crime Commissioner tomorrow? How and on what basis will this appointment be made? From what selection of candidates? And what powers were they using to make this appointment? What was the anticipated timescale for the by-election? Will the Police and Crime Panel continue to press for changes to the Police and Crime Commissioner legislation?

In the absence of the Cabinet representative on the Police and Crime Panel, Councillor Harry Harpham, Councillor Julie Dore commented that she knew an election would take place imminently. She understood that the appointment of an interim could only be made from the current office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The Police and Crime Panel would follow the normal recruitment process. They would request expressions of interest in the post and if there was more than one would follow a selection process. A by-election was required to take place within 35 days of the resignation. The Council would continue to press for changes to the current legislation.

5.12

Public Question in respect of Domestic Abuse

Mr Martin Brighton commended the Council for its recent policy documents on Domestic Abuse. He asked if the Council would consider taking some of the relevant core principles and applying them ubiquitously?

Councillor Mary Lea thanked Mr Brighton for his comments and reported that a lot of hard work had gone into producing the report. Officers and Members would consider whether any important principles could be adapted elsewhere.

5.13

Public Question in respect of Abuse

Martin Brighton asked whether the Council, or any of its Elected Members, ever supported the use of abuse, or protect abusers, for political, pragmatic or for any other reason?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that she categorically did not support any form of abuse and all Cabinet Members agreed on this. She hoped that all Elected Members agreed with this.

5.14

Public Question in respect of Political Supporters

Martin Brighton asked whether the current administration ever condoned the ‘packing’ of public meetings with its own supporters so as to further its own political agenda whilst creating the illusion of public consent, and what would such practice say about respect for democracy?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she didn’t condone such practices and was not aware that it had occurred with Labour supporters under the current administration.

5.15

Public Question in respect of Democracy

Martin Brighton asked whether the current administration ever condoned the calling in of the ‘loyalty card’ to persuade otherwise dissenting citizens to vote in favour of a political policy and what would such a practice say about respect for democracy?

Councillor Dore commented that she would consider this a bribe and would not condone it.

5.16

Public Question in respect of Group Responsibility

Martin Brighton asked whether the current administration accepted the principles of ‘group responsibility’, ‘we are all in this together’ or any other similar tactic? And if so could they please give examples?

Councillor Dore commented that she accepted the principles of collective responsibility but could not be held personally responsible for every member of her group. Where a member was accused of inappropriate activity she would take responsibility to ensure that it didn’t happen again.

5.17

Public Question in respect of Response to Public Question

Martin Brighton asked what should the procedure be should it be demonstrated that an Elected Member deliberately gave a false answer to a question from a member of the public at a public meeting?

Councillor Dore responded that she was not aware of any instance as described in the question. If Mr Brighton had any evidence to suggest that was the case he should refer to the Members Code of Conduct procedure.