South Yorkshire Police & Crime Panel - of 29th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

The Police & Crime Panel is supposed to be the oversight and scrutiny body for the Police & Crime Commissioner. During what is essentially a hiatus between the resignation of Shaun Wright and the election of the new permanent PCC on 30th October there is not a lot of business to be undertaken so the meeting was short and to the point.

---

Their was a welcome from Cllr Harry Harpham (Labour, Chair) and an introduction of a new member to replace Cllr Vines (UKIP), who resigned after the last meeting. (The no-confidence deliberations on Shaun Wright.) The new member is Cllr Martyn Parker, (UKIP) representing Rotherham MBC. The chair then proposed the minutes show an expression of condolences to Mayor Ros Jones (Labour) of Doncaster MBC for the bereavement in her family that meant she was not in attendance that day.

---

The agenda then came on to Public Questions. I was the only member of the public in attendance that day but there were several other written questions to be put to the panel. Cllr Harpham commented that the questions were all on a similar theme, the problems of the last few weeks, the lack of powers of the PCP and the concerns for the future. He then proposed to the meeting that they make the next meeting a one item agenda to discuss these matters in an open forum and try to get as many members of the public involved as possible. He also suggested that as such they hold over the questions at this meeting to the future meeting for consideration then.

Cllr Harpham asked me if I was content to do that, I agreed, and the meeting assented to his proposal concerning the next meeting. Some of the other questions were from members of Neighbourhood Watch and Sheffield for Democracy who were known to me and he asked that I ask them to try to attend that meeting. He would also ask the support officers to contact all the questioners with the same request.

---

There were only two more short items on the agenda, to agree the last meeting minutes and to offer the panels recommendation on the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer for the PCC's office. The minutes were approved with some matters arising comments from Cllr Parker as a new member not in post at the last meeting. The panel accepted the appointment of the new CFO after a short discussion as to whether it should be held over until the new PCC was elected.

---

The meeting closed at this point with a brief comment from Cllr Harpham as a reminder of the next meetings purpose, the date of which will be 19th November 2014, at 1.00pm Rotherham Town Hall. He also commented at this point that the next meeting and indeed all future meetings of the PCP would be webcast live. The members then dispersed. Anyone in South Yorkshire who is interested in the working of the PCP can attend, I would encourage them to be there.

The announcement of the webcasting came a bit out off left field so I approached the support Officers to ask when that decision had been made. The response was, “just now”, it seems to have been a spur of the moment decision by the Chair, aware perhaps of the sensitivities of the subject at the next meeting. This should lead to an interesting conversation at Full Council next week, with Sheffield City Council still resisting the introduction of this tool for transparency.

The Sheffield TTIP Roadshow, Compare & Contrast, by Nigel Slack.

---

The organisers - Vs - The participant.

---

It has taken me a little while to get hands on the organiser's view of this event (from 1st October) but, having done so, I've been able to compare that to a report I received from a participant shortly after the event. The contrasts are interesting and I hope illuminating. Both mention the problems now at the forefront of public and political campaigns against this TTIP deal but the organisers inevitably spin the positive.

For background, British American Business is a hugely influential and hugely well funded lobbying group. They suggest they are like an international Chamber of Commerce but one look at their website shows the reach they have and the influence they believe they can exert. They fund the influential 'All party parliamentary group on EU-US trade & investment' and the keynote speaker, John Healey MP (Labour), is the chair of this group.

I will make the comparison by quoting from the BAB report and then highlight using italics any discrepancies from the 'participants' comments. My own additional comments are in [square brackets]. The first discrepancy is actually nothing to do with the meeting as such but the preamble to the BAB report. This states;

“On October 1, 2014 BritishAmerican Business and the Sheffield City Region invited businesses and stakeholders from government and local business and trade organisations to participate in a TTIP Roadshow event in Sheffield. Nabarro LLP kindly hosted the event.”

According to my notes from the Full Council Meeting of the same day (1st October) Cllr Dore commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence, as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

---

However to continue to matters within the event itself.

After introductions came a keynote address by John Healey MP. His key points were;
“First, this is the best prepared bilateral trade deal in history. Prior to the launch of negotiations, governments on both sides of the Atlantic had been assessing the potential and the feasibility of an agreement concluding with the recommendation to launch negotiations for a comprehensive trade and investment agreement. Second, in light of growing competition from other economic regions in the world, TTIP is the opportunity to set a common set of high standards that may function as a template worldwide. Third, this agreement could be beneficial to consumers, workers and businesses in the UK.”

He also suggested;
“If the UK wants to keep its economy successful, it will need this deal.”

On the concerns of the public he said;
“That political leaders and negotiators on both sides have pledged that a trade agreement between the EU and the US will not lower standards and that the National Health Services (NHS) will be protected. However, he also stated that he saw no case for an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system in an EU/US agreement and that this issue should not be a stumbling block for the entire deal.”

Missing comments;
Any deal must be democratically approved by leaders and government (JH thinks it should go to parliament itself).
[Suggests BAB don't like his comments on ISDS or need for democratic debate]

---

First speaker from the panel was Mark Robson of UK trade and investment. (Gov dept that promotes exports and foreign investment in UK) His comments were;
“pointed out how important the economic and Investment-relationship already is for the Sheffield region and the UK as a whole. Many businesses of all sizes and sectors in the Sheffield region already export to the US, but market access for companies is still limited in various sectors. TTIP can help to remove those limitations to increase the trade and investment relationship.”

Missing comments;
NHS – turn argument on its head, our health companies can be looking to sell services to US; UK provides springboard for US companies to reach Europe so they like to invest here; US market is not easy for UK companies despite common language. [missing comments infer the imbalance of power in transatlantic economic relationships]

---

Next was Richard Currie of UPS (US parcels & logistics company) he commented;
“TTIP represents an opportunity to remove existing “bottlenecks” in the transatlantic supply chain, and facilitate trade for businesses and consumers. For example, if TTIP results in an increase of the ‘de minimis’ threshold (the value of goods below which customs duties are not applied) to $800, lower value goods could be transported at a lower cost and with less administrative effort. Furthermore, studies have shown that the removal of tariffs, could boost transatlantic trade by $120 billion over a 5-year period. Richard emphasised that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers should be the main beneficiaries of a comprehensive agreement.”

Missing comments; Regulatory compliance or acceptance of each others’ standards (NOT “harmonisation” – Jeffries also rejected that description) – would be especially helpful for pharmaceuticals and locomotives.
[Centred on good for UPS, still suggests ability for US food and agriculture, including GMOs, to be allowed into EU]

---

Then came William Beckett, CEO of Beckett Plastics, who commented;
“offered an insight into the current challenges small companies face when trading with the US, in particular in regards to cultural and legal differences between the EU and the US. William welcomed the negotiations for a comprehensive trade deal. However, he emphasized the need for government to closely work with trade and business organisations to fully understand the needs of local business.”

Missing comments;
Chairs trade forum of 80 companies in Yorkshire & Humberside, member of 3 US trade organisations with 1000s of members – never heard of TTIP and not excited about it. What would help their exports is to fix the exchange rate (trade tariffs are small problem by comparison). Biggest barriers are cultural, different legal system especially around intellectual property and litigation (don’t automatically get costs). SMEs don’t export to US because they are frightened and apathetic.
[Apparent direct contradiction. Suggests BAB need to bury lack of interest and the uncertainty in UK businesses]

---

Next up was David Henig, Director for TTIP at the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, and the chap that commented to a protester outside the event “it is not the job of Government to protect the public from corporations,” He is reported as commenting;
“Most important element of an agreement will be the removal of existing non-tariff barriers in sectors like chemicals or automotive. But also the removal of existing tariffs will be significant. TTIP will also allow for UK companies to access market segments that are currently protected from outside-US competition. A comprehensive trade agreement will help to keep the EU-US market an attractive destination for business and investment in a more competitive world. It is hoped that the negotiations for TTIP are concluded in 2015 and could be in force by 2017 or 2018. David emphasised that government has been working hard to make the negotiations as transparent as possible and to provide a platform for exchange and input.”

Missing comments;
Multiple examples of how things will be freed up – size of shower trays, insurance, dairy products, chemicals, automobiles, customer checks and paper work, lowering trade tariffs so this trade deal will set a high standard economy and set a bench mark when “facing up to China”. The point of ISDS is that it enshrines that we won’t discriminate against foreign investors, who are keen to see that happen.
[Concerned that re; ISDS a civil servant supports corporations over UK citizens]

---

Finally came PJ Menner from the US Embassy who commented;
“That for US government, the trade agreement is considered to be an important vehicle for more jobs and growth in two economies that have suffered during the financial crisis in 2008. There is a strong political will and commitment in Washington to accomplish a comprehensive agreement ....Especially for the UK, having a comprehensive trade agreement will mean to bring the economic relationship in line with its political and cultural relationship.”

Missing comments; US is committed, Obama sees it as his legacy project.
[Indicates US sees greater benefit for them over UK]

---

That was the end of the panel presentations and the floor was open to a question and answer session. BAB reported this as;
“During the Q&A, participants used the opportunity to discuss the balance between the benefits of trade and the need to protect citizens. Participants were assured that government will guard the ability to regulate and that there is a common interest on both sides of the Atlantic to keep standards high. Another question addressed potential consequences of a UK outside of the European Union. Participants agreed that it would be challenging for a UK outside of Europe to negotiate an agreement that would offer similar benefits than TTIP. Participants were also informed that a separate chapter for SMEs is currently being discussed as part of the agreement.”

It's impossible to go into the full detail of the Q&A here but my personal reading of the session suggests that the concerns over the NHS, ISDS and the particular concerns of SME's (Small, Medium Enterprises) about predatory corporations were not assuaged by this roadshow. Indeed it seemed they were not listening to the SME concerns and telling them they were wrong. In addition, although NHS got a mention other public services are apparently fair game. Overall the participants seemed not to be reassured by the event and still see TTIP as more of a threat than a boon.

'The Public Interest' – Future Campaigns, by Nigel Slack.

---

This is just a quick post to ask for some feedback. The issue that got me started on this stony path two years or so ago was transparency. I was shocked by the level of money that the Council spent with private companies to deliver public services and disturbed that more information about these contracts was not known. To me it simply would not do that with over £700M (as it was then) being paid to private companies there was next to no information about what they did for that money, whether they were any good at whatever it was they did and most importantly, how much of that huge sum was profit for these companies?

---

That was the root of the campaigns and issues I now work on. That transparency drive will also remain the main focus of what I do. Don't get me wrong however, Sheffield City Council is considered very good at transparency, compared to other local authorities. They welcome the public, mostly, into decision making meetings, to ask questions or deliver petitions, many councils do not. They publish far more on their website than many others I have seen, possibly why it is so difficult to navigate.

I still maintain they could be better and in one area in particular we are way behind the majority of councils in England. Sheffield City Council do not webcast meetings, either live streaming or as archive material. This, for me, is important for two reasons, (amongst many positive aspects of webcasting) it allows people to see how their councillors contribute to the decision making in the city and enables them to work out whether they are doing a good job, It also vastly increases the amount of information available about the meetings that take place. The formal minutes of a meeting are essentially just a record of decisions made. Democratic Services in Sheffield try their best to add more information, particularly around questions asked and comments made by Councillors. However a large part of the goings on in council meetings is simply lost.

---

So those are the two main planks of my efforts in Sheffield. I am working with others, mainly Sheffield for Democracy, on other issues such as the council's Community Engagement policy, local devolution and the voting system, TTIP and such. What I'm looking for from my readers, however, is a set of ideas that may form a future agenda. I have ideas of my own and some of those are mentioned on my current 'Campaign and Issues' page. As one man I clearly cannot do everything and I need to be aware that there will be some things that I cannot tackle directly (austerity is an issue for everyone, national policies can only be influenced, until ballot time) but I will always do my best to address peoples concerns, if not by my own actions, at least with advice.

---

So to summarise;

The Root Issues.
Transparency – of 'Outsourcing Arrangements.'
Webcasting – of Decision Making meetings and Public Engagement events.

So let me know your ideas, on my blog comments, through my 'Public Interest' facebook page or through my 'Twitter' feed using @SheffCityNigel.

Sheffield Star & Telegraph - PCC Hustings on 22nd October 2014.

---

The Sheffield Star & Telegraph hosted a PCC Hustings event at Hallam University last night and I was there. The event should have been webcast live but technical issues first delayed the start of the event for 15 minutes and then we started in the hope that the technical issues would catch up later. The event is now available on the Star's website and on Youtube, I link to it below.

That being the case I am not going to deconstruct the whole event, you should watch it yourself and make up your own mind, but I am going to try and give my impressions of the event, the candidates and the way they answer questions. This will be purely subjective but may help you to judge the words they say alongside the other cues that I could pick up whilst in the audience.

The overall impression of the event was the level of 'management' involved. Almost all questions asked of the candidates were pre-selected and read out by the Editor of the Star, James Mitchinson. The lecture theatre in which the event took place was liberally padded by 'Party' supporters and the members of the undecided public, amongst the 100 or so people there, were very few indeed. There were also a number of students, naturally and I saw members of the Neighbourhood Watch, who would have been very disappointed that their role, as the biggest community group the PCC will connect with, went unmentioned.

---

Before the event started I spoke briefly with a reporter for BBC Radio 5 Live, don't know if the interview was used, who commented he was struggling to find someone not connected to a Party or an interested organisation, too few members of the public. He also talked about a 'vox pop' he had been doing in Rotherham that day. Apparently, although every person he spoke to knew about the election, none admitted to an intention to actually vote.

To begin the session James Mitchinson asked each candidate to take just 1 minute to give an opening comment or two. Walker (Conservative) went first and talked confidently and stressed his 'untainted by the events' status and his public first approach. Next came Clarkson (UKIP) He stood to address the event (odd) and reading from notes seemed to reiterate his written election material. Third was Billings (Labour) Spoke without notes and stressed the need to bring the community together and his independence from a Police background. Expressed with the quiet positivity one would expect from a 'reverend'. Lastly was Allen (English Democrats) Again spoke without notes but seemed diffident and lacking confidence in what he was saying.

---

Opening statements were followed by the question and answer portion of the evening. By the end we managed nine questions but with seven of those coming from pre selected written submissions and judging from the fluidity of the answers and Clarkson referring to notes I worry that they may have been seen by the candidates. Subjects were; four questions that revolved around the Rotherham tragedy, cleaning up the PCC role, victims seeing PCC as waste of money, promoting trust in the Police and the criminal investigation into the PCC. There were two questions that brought the independent criminologist into the discussion, on decriminalising low level drugs and how targets affect police focus. Then one question on road priorities and cycling.

The responses to the questions circling the Rotherham tragedy typically attempted to create distance between the candidates and the problem. No political connection (Allen, Clarkson & Walker) it's all Labours fault. No connection to the Police (Allen, Billings & Walker) anyone connected to the Police can't do the job right. So the blame game was under way early but at this stage fairly genteel. The other questions were actually quite pedestrian and the answers fairly predictable, drugs bad, cycling good, we need targets to judge performance. (despite the criminologist hinting that targets skew police behaviours in a manner that results in tragedies)

---

Next came my question, I was one of several that put their hands up but possibly because I was a member of the actual public I was chosen. I'm putting the full question here because on my feed the video stops and stutters and has cut out the question I ask Clarkson. (mistake or mischief?)

“How do you reconcile your particular party affiliation with this job role?
Billings – Labour involvement in the Rotherham scandal
Clarkson - £1M lurch to the extreme right of UKIP in Europe
Allen – Support for an English Parliament vs UK policing
Walker – The party that devised this failed legislation”

I think this was the first time in the meeting that they all looked uncomfortable, I was asking them to address the political aspect of their candidacy and they didn't like it.

You can hear the answers in full on the video but the interesting thing for me was their attitudes. Walker was affronted at the suggestion the legislation was a failure, support for the Party line. Clarkson was unable or unwilling to answer the question and seemed annoyed that I dare bring politics into it, that was their job. (followed by an anti Labour rant) Billings threw it back in Clarkson's face connecting him to the (non Labour) Police force and his service in that force during past indiscretions. Allen didn't get the link between the need for UK approaches on terrorism & International crime, but commented on difference between English and Scots law. (Wales and N.I. Seem not to matter)

---

The last question was about the PCC commitment to student needs and was back to safe territory for the candidates. At the end of questions the Star's editor gave each candidate the final opportunity for a brief comment. He then rounded the event off and everyone started to disperse.

This was quite an interesting point and my observations of the candidates were as follows. Allen left on his own and his demeanour was not that of a good night being had. Clarkson was hailed by his team like some sort of conquering hero whilst Billings maintained his serious reverend face with his supporters. Walker I lost sight of so don't know his state of mind at this point.

My overall impression of performances? Allen acts like the loser in the right wing contest. Billings is aiming at the calm reconciliation approach. Clarkson fixates on Labour involvement in Rotherham and 'getting it right'. Walker seems to aim for similarly serious ground to Billings' but touts the 'untainted' card too. All of them were a bit loose on their actual plans, Clarkson worst of all and only Billings and Walker were the least bit confident in their plans for some aspects of the job.

---

Personally I don't think any of them are up to the job. I actually don't think any one person is. To gather together a range of people with expertise in many areas, that affect the relationship of the Police with the public, and lead that process with a 'proportionally' representative group of elected people from throughout South Yorkshire would seem a better idea to me, but one politician or many politicians, they alone are not good enough for the job.

Click here for YouTube version

sheffield city council, budget conversation of 21st october 2014, by nigel slack.

---

A quick headcount at the start of the meeting suggested some 100 or so people there and the mix was fairly even in genders but largely older adults with a scatter of younger ones. Better than the usual collection of older types that inhabit these events (Me included).

A brief opening statement by John Mothersole (Chief Executive) was followed by some context for the presentation by Cllr Ben Curran (Cabinet Member Finance & Resources).

As part of that context he reminded us that the figures discussed were not definitive but subject to change depending on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, which would indicate the extent of Government plans to further cut public spending, and the announcement in late December of the Local Government Settlement, which would give exact figures for the cuts to each council's grant from government.

The headline figure however forecasts a need to reduce council spending by £60M in 2015/16. It was noted at this stage that this is in the year when the Chancellor, George Osborne, had predicted that austerity would be over. The slides for the presentation are here, and are relatively self explanatory.

SCC budget Presentation Slideshow

---

The rest of my comments will be to highlight points brought out in the presentation not on the slides and to report something of the question and answer session. The first few slides were there to illustrate the level of the cuts to local government budgets, the highest percentage cuts apart from the welfare budget, and that there is significant opinion and evidence that the cuts are not being applied either evenly across all councils or taking into account different levels of need.

The latter slides in Cllr Curran's part of the presentation attempt to illustrate the scale of the cuts already made, 2015/16 will mean £300M lost from council spend since 2010, and the administration's belief that they have been able to maintain their principles and their ambition for the city. This included the plans for 5,000 new homes built over the next three years, thousands of apprenticeships to try and tackle our youth unemployment levels and introducing the living wage to all council employees and 80% of contract company employees. (a subject I chased with both councillors and officers from an early stage)

---

The presentation then moved to John Mothersole for the more detailed facts and figures and the approach the council were considering.

The initial slides in this part illustrated the relatively small amount of the budget that the council has discretion over. From a total £1.4Bn budget most is spent on services fixed by either government, education or housing needs. This leaves only £477M of discretionary spend. So with the 2015/16 cuts the contribution to the city from government grants will have fallen by 50% and that discretionary budget by 30%.

---

All this is being done in the face of a growing population in the city and a weak economic outlook for both the city, the country and the world. The growing population and cost pressures such as inflation also mean there is less service can be delivered with the same amount of money from this budget.

The presentation then went on to discuss the approach the council are looking to take and some of the things already done to achieve savings in the past. It also illustrated some changes that may have a positive impact on the city's budget, such as the New Homes Bonus and Community Infrastructure Charge on developers which could raise over £11M in the medium term, so not all for 2015/16. An even greater impact would be for central government to release more of the business rates they keep, £129M back to the city, without this it remains difficult for the council to reduce business rates (for start up small businesses etc.) without further impact on budgets.

One slide shows the confused position on money available and what is available to cut. Total public spending in Sheffield is £4.5Bn, the council's share of that in direct services is £800M much of the rest is spent via the council but on things like schools, health, transport and emergency services. Ringfenced money. Of the £800M some of that is also ringfenced for fixed budgets and so the money where the council can find cuts is only £477M. The council is therefore aiming to try and get more control over the total £800M and be able to use it more imaginatively and effectively as a result. Whether government will let go of these strings is questionable, whatever colour is in power.

---

The final slides were about how we, the public, can get involved. I think this is important, because without some offer of alternative ideas we will be stuck with whatever the councillors decide. The council think this is important because they can then say we were asked even when we don't like their answers.

The event then moved into a question and answer phase. The questions were mostly about clarification off certain budget areas and things like the difference between capital and revenue. The short answer to that is capital money is for one off projects (usually buildings etc) and revenue is for day to day running expenses. Like buying a car, that is capital. Petrol, insurance, car tax, that's revenue.

One person asked about the way the government fixed the amount of the money they distribute to councils. The answer essentially was that it is now based on population in the main and the need or deprivation of a council area is less and less important in the calculation. This is illustrated by the way city councils are proportionally worse hit by cuts than leafy rural southern counties, some of whom have seen increased levels of government grant.

I asked whether the new Sheffield City Region Combined Authority would be able to look at shared services between authorities to benefit from economies of scale and service efficiencies over bigger areas. The response was that this was possible in the medium to long term but unlikely to be in time to affect 2015/16 budget. I also asked whether there was any sign that the government might move it's position on the business rates retention. The response to this was a flat no.

---

The meeting wrapped at 7.30pm but there will be much more to come on this. I urge everyone to look at the information on the slides, think about the services they receive or contribute to and what could be done differently. We can't get away from this and even a change in government looks unlikely to change the impact for 2015/16, much as we might hope they would come to their senses and realise that austerity and spending cuts are making matters worse not better. Lobby your councillors, lobby your MPs, make your voice heard in the community and in the corridors of power.

Finally, the council's twee video presentation is below. It views a bit like a budget for toy town but I guess it helps get the basics out there and hopefully makes people think.

SCC Budget Video Presentation.

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting of 15th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

Cabinet meeting had a few interesting nuggets this time round, so this is quite a long report. First I'll deal with my 'part' in the meeting. After the usual preamble and agreeing the minutes of the last meeting we headed in to public questions. This is generally more relaxed than in the Full Council meetings and I took the opportunity to advertise the Sheffield for Democracy PCC Hustings event on Tuesday 21st October at the United Reform Church in the city centre.

Here's the audio of my comments.

This was followed by my first question. The question was inspired by the article in the Guardian on Tuesday about the MIPIM (Le marché international des professionnels de l’immobilier) conference that is normally held in Cannes, South of France, but has an inaugural UK version in London this week. The Guardian article suggests the conference is THE place to be if you are a council wanting to sell off the family silver, or housing estates, that type of thing.

To quote from the article.

"For the past 25 years, this conference – Mipim for short – has been held in Cannes. It’s a jaunt so lavish as to be almost comic – where big money developers invite town hall executives for secret discussions aboard private yachts, and whose regulars boast that they get through more champagne than all the liggers at the film festival. Suitably oiled-up, local officials open talks with multinational developers to sell council housing estates and other sites. All this networking is so lucrative for the builders that they even fly over council staff. Last year, Australia’s Lend Lease paid for Southwark’s boss, Peter John, to attend Cannes. This is the same Lend Lease to which Southwark sold the giant Heygate estate at a knock-down price: 1,100 council flats in inner London to be demolished and replaced with 2,500 units, of which only 79 will be for “social rent”."

I therefore asked whether this was the same conference that Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business ,skills and development) had attended last year and whether Sheffield attendees had any restrictions placed on them about selling off the city's family silver? Leigh Bramall and Julie Dore (Leader) both responded, Cllr Bramall indicating that it was the same conference, explaining that he and the Chief Executive, John Mothersole, roughed it in cheap bedsits whilst there and that they only attend these events to attract investment in the city for projects like the retail quarter. Cllr Dore added emphasis to the question of restriction making it very clear that any decisions on anything that came out of such conferences would be made in Sheffield by the council.

Question 1 audio below.

My second question was based on the report on Grounds Maintenance being approved at this meeting. The report itself recommends keeping ground maintenance in house but changing some of the structural management elements. The part of the report that got me interested was comment on the weighting of the decision making process. The key outcome weightings determine what are considered the most important aspects of the decision. In this case it fell out as follows.

Customer First 30%
Value for Money 30%
Council considerations 20%
Employee consideration 20%

I asked whether the same weightings were applied to all council contract decisions whether currently outsourced or not and how this would affect the consideration of contracts for which the council no longer had the 'capacity' to bring in-house.

Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) responded that weightings were used in all decisions of this nature but that they were different depending on the service under review. Services that were mainly internal processes would not have the same level of 'customer first' weighting. Service quality, however, was always factored in and they did not always choose the cheapest option. He passed no comment on the second part of my question. I guess the follow up will be to get some breakdown of the types of contracts and the corresponding weightings, to see if they are reasonable in the eyes of the public.

Question 2 audio below.

After further questions from members of the public the meeting moved on to consider a number of reports brought for approval. Item 9. was the first on the subject of the Grounds Maintenance arrangements for the council. In brief the report recommended the retention in-house of this service with some structural changes to how it was managed. The outcome was straightforward with the recommendations approved. The interesting bit was in comments on the report where Cllr Julie Dore asked whether the 'Sheffield Standard' which they were applying to the quality of the maintenance carried out could be extended to those private landlords (like housing associations) who were supposed to maintain their own grounds. Although the response was not a complete yes, it suggested that discussions on this were already under-way with those landlords.

The report at item 11. on Independent Living Solutions, was essentially about the various aspects of the city's independent living strategy for older and vulnerable people in conjunction with the Clinical Commissioning Group. There was one element of concern for me in this, or more correctly in the language of the presentation to cabinet, where the council officer referred to the Health and Care economy. The problem is this suggests an approach where the considerations are about money first and people second. This may not be the case but that is certainly the perception. In such a context words are important and should be chosen with care to reflect the truth of a statement.

The final part of the meeting went on to look at budget reports and in the first report we, the public, got our first glimpse of the chilling future for the city's budget in 2015/16. The indications are that the Government grant to Sheffield for next year will drop by £45 Million or 29% and the projected shortfall in the city's budget would consequently be some £38M. Another serving of austerity that will be very difficult to swallow.

The audio of the comment is here.

---

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com
To 'like' on Facebook click here
To follow on Twitter click here
To support Nigel's self-funding Indiegogo campaign click here

Sheffield City Council meeting agenda with links to reports.

---

11th October 2014. Democracy, What a Good Idea! - Community Engagement in Sheffield.

Today, as part of my work with Sheffield for Democracy, we presented an event about the work we have been doing over the last year or so in order to get feedback on whether we were headed in the right direction for our members and where we might go from here. The event was also open to the public to try and gather some new members for a community group that currently punches way above it's weight in the city for a group with no real resources beyond it's members.

The groups website (click here) will carry a more detailed report on what went off but I just want to cover the highlights of what was discussed and what came up from the members and public. We covered six base subjects, most of which overlap in some way or other but give us the chance to talk specific issues and campaigns.

The first was Community Engagement led by Jonathan Marsden. He outlined the way engagement with Sheffield City Council has changed since the demise of the Community Assemblies and commented on some of the concerns that have arisen about lack of transparency and accountability. There are also concerns that the new arrangements make it more difficult for the public to get involved and there is some evidence of local members of the public having their voice drowned out by the 3rd sector. (Charities and Voluntary Groups) Comments from the audience suggested we need to keep up the pressure on accountability and also stress to Council that the funding available through the old CAs was only a part of why people valued them. There was also the connection to Councillors and the ability to discuss issues in public meetings. How can this be revived?

Next up was me discussing the groups connection and work with Parliament. I outlined our work submitting evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee with respect to two of their inquiries, The 'Local Government Code' as it is known and 'Voter Engagement'. Also on our meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg MP. At this meeting we discussed with him the constitutional concerns about City Regions, Local Devolution and finally the proposed MP recall legislation. Audience comments this time centred around the need for stronger safeguards around the City Regions influence and also potentially the Clinical Commissioning Group around the NHS, the emphasis on possible economic led devolution rather than democratically led devolution and the concern about devolution being City centric.

Our third issue was Hustings, something Sheffield for Democracy has organised for General elections, the European elections and the PCC elections. Afrah Alkheli led on this one, giving a potted history of our previous efforts but mainly wanting suggestions as to what would be best for the 2015 general election. The suggestions from the audience were, that hustings were a good idea and were usually far more interesting than they might at first sound. That the way we organised the Euro hustings should be promoted as a model. They could have potential around highlighting issues at individual events. Some concerns from our side that, as a small and poor group we could not achieve that level of commitment.

Issue four was Scrutiny and led by Alan Kewley. He attempted to outline the labyrinthine structure of Scrutiny Committees within the city council and some of the new bodies for which scrutiny is still an uncertain animal, such as the Police and Crime Commissioner and the City Region bodies. This subject caused some of the most strident comment with one participant suggesting that the whole scrutiny system was dysfunctional. There was a general call for scrutiny to be more independent and concerns over the tensions that arose within the council and the scrutiny function over 'politicisation'. There was also a feeling that the public were usually more engaged and active in scrutiny than the councillors.

Number five on our list was around Ward Boundaries, Local Elections and Local Devolution, it was led by Vicky Seddon, the groups co-ordinator. Vicky outlined the current review of ward boundaries being undertaken by the Boundary Commission and our submissions to the city council about the shape of things to come. She also talked about the All Out Election that would follow and whether this is a good idea for a permanent change. Then she covered in more detail the potential forms of local devolution that appear to be on the table from the main parties. The feedback was that ward boundary issues are fairly impenetrable and will never satisfy everybody. The idea of all out elections was generally well received and comments suggested that although the current system offered a more stable approach that all out elections would probably create a more balanced council politically. It was felt this would be particularly true with Proportional Representation as well. The audiences thoughts on devolution were more uncertain and were generally in favour of a full and frank discussion probably under the auspices of a Constitutional Convention.

The last issue we discussed was the role of the PCC and their scrutiny system, the Police and Crime Panel. Wendy Zealand led on this, as a member of our group but also Regional Co-ordinator for the Neighbourhood Watch. Wendy gave an outline of the relationship between the PCC and the scrutiny arrangements of the Police and Crime Panel. The poorly considered legislation gave no real powers to the scrutiny PCP and as a result they are just an advisory body that can question but not control or remove the PCC. The concerns raised before the elections for PCCs about this excess of power in one role bore disturbing fruit in the case of Rotherham and the PCC. The audience response was to highlight the need to get rid of this unpopular post.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

6th October 2014. Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting, by Nigel Slack.

This relatively new combined authority is a formal iteration of a group that has been operating for the past two years. It comprises the leaders of the nine metropolitan and district councils around Sheffield City, Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster, Bassetlaw, NE Derbyshire, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales and Bolsover.At the moment they have only two real responsibilities, strategic transport and ecenomic development. The chair of the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) is also a member and is the organisation that the Government use to funnel any funds the Combined Authority may get for economic development. The meeting was held in the Rotherham Council Chamber.

Being so new there is an element of the constitutional aspects of the new authority still trying to catch up with their new legal status. Their current rules and procedures need some tweeking to improve both transparency and public engagement. In addition they are still not overseen by a suitable scrutiny body, though this is apparently close to being determined. The agenda for todays meeting had a couple of interesting items on it. The first was a report on the Rail North initiative. This initiative is about devolving the Northern and Trans Pennine rail franchises to the North of England. 30 local transport authorities make up this initiative and although it is only an influence on the new franchises for 2016 it is hoped that by becoming a fully constituted company they will be in a position to take over the franchises before 2023.

The second item of interest was an opening of a 'conversation' with a report about the City Region and local devolution. This is under the auspices of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg's Northern Futures initiative. The responses for the Combined Authority need to be in by the 17th October, which seems very short notice for something that addresses some very big issues. The discussion in the meeting was interesting with a lot of concern in respect of "be careful what you wish for", worrying whether the government would again pass powers to the regions without providing the finances to service them. The chair also commented on the shortage of 'Big Ideas' for this initiative and how to find some.

I recorded this meeting and the section about the Northern Futures initiative is below. Unfortunately some of the leaders were very poor about using the microphones and the sound may drop out from time to time, even though I have tried to up the volume where this happens. This is the sort of thing that shows some lack of care when it comes to public engagement and whether or not the public can actually hear what is being said in the chamber.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

6th October 2014. Paul Blomfield MP, The Big Conversation, by Nigel Slack

Each year, to his credit, my local MP for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield, holds a aeries of events throughout his constituency talking with a broad range of organisations and the public. These events cover a range of subjects and are used by him and his team to inform his work for the coming year on behalf of his part of Sheffield.

This year I attended the event at the Sharrow Community Forum offices just round the corner from where I live. There were about eighteen of us in the audience and before we got down to business we were plied with tea and biscuits by Paul's team. Starting the conversation, Paul commented on what the event was about and gave us some examples of the way he'd used previous 'conversations' to bring up in Parliament and begin campaigns about. The two most prominent being zero hour contracts and the problems associated with pay day loans.

I was fortunate enough to get the first question and asked Paul about his views on TTIP. (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) I cited concerns over the regulatory harmonisation agenda which would risk EU rules on food (GMO's in particular) and US regulations on banking which are stronger than ours. Strong concerns over ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) a system that is being used by corporations to prevent changes to laws that might adversely affect their 'potential future' profits. Then the little known Mode 4 Cross Border Trade section, that would allow corporations to employ foreign staff, in this country, irrespective of immigration laws, and on lower terms and conditions than theri UK or EU counterparts.

In response, Paul commented that the biggest problem highlighted in other conversations about TTIP was with respect to the NHS being vulnerable to privatisation and the ISDS section. His opinion came down to the fact that the NHS and other public services should be exempt from the treaty and the ISDS proposals should either be radically different to ensure it does not limit Governments ability to legislate. He also inferred that this was Labour Party policy as well. I expressed concern over the potential for the treaty to be in place before the next election therby negating any election promises, but he said it was inconceivable, with the level of opposition in EU and USA that it would be complete before the 2015 election. On Mode 4, however, he made no comment. He did also offer to continue the discussion with me at another time.

There were a range of questions from other members of the audience ranging from IS and the Labour support for bombing, Local Devolution and not wanting an English Parliament, the need to challenge the move of money within the economy from wages to profits and from profits to dividends, and whether the people are willing to pay more for the NHS in taxes.

We concluded after an hour with Paul promising to circulate the results of all his big conversation events and thanking us all for our time and contributions. As the meeting broke up I was approached by a number of people wanting more information about TTIP, expressing their concern that so little was in the public domain about this treaty. I chatted over the basics with them for a while but then suggested they follow up their enquiries at the 'Stop TTIP' website. (details below)

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

1st October 2014 - Full Council Meeting, by Nigel Slack.

First off, an apology, due to a recording malfunction the quality of the audio I recorded at this meeting is not suitable for inclusion in the blog, so it's back to the written word only for this report. I will however try to keep it succinct and as soon as they are available I will include the official minutes at the end. So after the usual welcomes and housekeeping information, minutes of last meeting were accepted and the meeting moved on to public questions and petitions.

There were two petitions of particular interest. The first was a repeat of a petition on the Council's contracts with G4S and concerns over their human rights record. Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) admitted a mistake had been made the last time this came up and that the Council have 2 contracts with G4S, one for cash collection services and one for keyholder services, though they are both of low value. He informed the petitioners that the contracts were to be retendered by the early part of 2015 and the motion he has put forward later in the meeting should address their concerns about human rights.

The second was with respect to Scooter parking in the city, a mode of transport becoming ever more popular again. The petitioner, Jonathan Marsden, asked for improved levels of scooter parking areas and an exemption for scooters to be allowed to park on pavements. In response Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills and Development) commented that parking was the most problematic of issues with as many against as for any parking policy they as council might agree. He offered to continue to review the problems for scooters but that parking on pavement was unlikely to be a solution because of the problems this causes to the visually impaired.

Then came public questions. There were questions about the city pension fund and it's investment in fossil fuel funds and a number of questions about winter gritting in the Bradfield area of the city.

My questions were next and my first was concerning the fate of Smithy Wood ancient woodland to the North of the city. This woodland is subject to two decision processes within the council, a planning application is under consideration which would destroy the majority of the woodland in favour of a motorway service facility and an application to the licensing panel to have the woodland declared a village green thereby protecting it has been referred for a full inquiry to the council. On this second application, the chair of that committee commented that it was in the 'interests of natural justice' to hold an inquiry and in 'everyone's interest it be orgabised as quickly as possible'. I therefore asked if the council would ensure that the village green inquiry was held before the planning decision was made.

Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business,skills and development) responded to the effect that, planning decisions had to be taken in adherence to certain timescales to prevent applicants claiming 'non-determination'. However, even if the application is passed the 'village green' application still has to be processed before the planning permission becomes active.

My remaining questions, essentially two but probably really two and a half were about the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). I asked about the potential for this agreement to seriously curtail the ability of governemnt both national and local to pass legislation or by laws that 'might' affect a corporations profits. I commented on the involvement of the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) in the roadshow event for TTIP that took place that morning and asked whether, as a balance, the council would host an event that looked at the potential threats of the TTIP rather than the emphasis being placed on the positive aspects for business? I then attempted to comment on that mornings roadshow event and to ask whether any local public money had been used to support the event?

I say tried as I was interrupted by the Lord Mayor, Cllr Peter Rippon, telling me I was making a statement and to get to my question. This would seem to be an annual ritual, I was challenged in the same way last year by Cllr Vicky Priestley during her tenure as Lord Mayor. I soldiered on to ask my question though without some important contextual information. I also asked a supplementary question regarding a comment made by David Henig (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills) a civil servant "it's not Governments job to protect the people from corporations". I asked whether council had any comment on this?

Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) responded to all my questions in one go, fair enough, Answerring the last first she commented that "it is certainly the job of government to protect people from corporations" particularly she thought where they impact on peoples quality of life. She also supports some of the initiatives put forward by Ed Miliband around corporations that exploit there customers or the people they are supposed to be delivering services to, like the energy companies. Cllr Dore then commented on the global aspect of the economy and how private companie seemed to be taking over everything as seen lately with the NHS, however she also acknowledged that this put the 'left' in a delicate situation since despite their inclination to keep public services public, she has to accept that where we are is where we are. We have to accept that we need businesses to continue to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

She continued to comment on the role of the LEP and how city involvement enabled them to steer the LEP's investment in local business initiatives. On the issue of TTIP, she agrees with the national party's attempts to get an exemption for the NHS and other public services. On the roadshow, she commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence,as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

17th September 2014 - Cabinet Meeting, by Nigel Slack.

Due to a cock up in room bookings we were attending Cabinet in the reception room at the top of the grand staircase, which allows for better use of microphones and I hope therefore better recording. After the usual housekeeping announcements and apologies for absence and the approval of minutes we moved to public questions.

My first question of the day focussed on the outrageous behaviour of Cllr Jack Clarkson (UKIP) at the last full council meeting. Following the dropping of some leaflets onto the UKIP positions below the public gallery, Cllr Clarkson, in the midst of an emotional debate on the 'no confidence' motion about the PCC, stormed up into the public gallery and, from my position appeared to be trying to assault the member of the public that had dropped the leaflets.

My question raised the need for this type of action to be disciplined as contrary to the council's code of conduct for councillors and whether that would be done by Council or by a member of the public complaining.

The response from Council Leader, Julie Dore was to the effect that normally they would wait for a member of the public to bring it forward in writing. However, since this is essentially what I had done with this question, she would forward the complaint on my behalf.

The audio for this question and answer is below.


My second question was the result of conversations at home around the issues of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation tragedy. I commented that whilst discussing the tragedy of the Rotherham report with friends, I was told that relatives of theirs had a vulnerable child and that Rotherham Council had offered them un-chaperoned taxi travel for their child. They refused and are now thinking they may have had a lucky escape. The question then arises, does Sheffield offer such taxi travel? Is it chaperoned? And are the drivers CRB checked?

The answer from Cllr's Jackie Drayton (Children, Young People and Families) and Isobel Bowler (Culture,Sport and Leisure) was to the effect that the majority of council transport for vulnerable people, young and old, was by in house vehicles and drivers, all appropriately checked. taxi services that were used were also checked and regularly updated and any persons using that service were carefully assessed first. Cllr Bowler (responsible for taxi licensing) commented that Sheffield's licensing procedures were rightly very strict but that there does exist a potential problem more generally because of drivers getting licenses from outside the city, over which she has no control. This needs taking to SCRCA in my opinion.

Full audio below.


Question 3 from me was in respect of a TTIP roadshow being advertised on the city region LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) events calendar. The advertising for the event was unremittingly positive about TTIP and I felt contrary to the comments made on behalf of the council at the last full council meeting. I asked if anyone from council would be attending to offer a more balanced viewpoint. The rsponse from Julie Dore was one of surprise, it seemed this was the first she had heard of the roadshow but commented that she was meeting the CEO of the LEP that afternoon and would make further inquiries.

Full audio is below.


My final question to Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills and Development) about planning decision made after the fact at the 'Bluecoats' development on Psalter lane was almost sunk when he replied by e-mail the night before. However I commented that the reponse created further questions and asked to meet with him and planning to discuss it further. He agreed.

Full audio below.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

3rd September 2014 - Meeting of Full Council, by Nigel Slack.

After the usual preamble, the meeting began with an urgent motion, brought by the leader of the Council, Cllr Julie Dore, expressing no confidence in the current Police and Crime Commissioner, Shaun Wright, following the publication of the report by Prof. Jay into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham.

This somewhat rendered my original question about the costs of a by-election (a reason put forward by the PCC for not resigning) somewhat facile. So I withdrew that question (though Cllr Dore did answer that as well) and substituted a question following on from the vote passing the motion of no confidence in the PCC. This question asked whether the PCC would be at the emergency meeting of the Police & Crime Panel ( the committee set up to scrutinise the PCC's office) or whether he would be at the Home Affairs Select Committee hearing scheduled for the same day.

The essence of the answer, given by Cllr Harry Harpham who chairs the Police & Crime Panel, was that he would be at the select committee hearing as parliament takes precedence but that they were looking for a further date that week to require the PCC to attend and answer questions from the panel and the public. Cllr Dore added that the costs of any by-election would be covered by the Home Office.

The audio recording of the question and answer are below.


My second question of the day followed my being there when the 'Darlington Moms' left Sheffield Town Hall to continue their 300 mile march (in the steps of the Jarrow marchers of the great depression) in support of and defence of the NHS. The question asked about the relationship between the NHS and the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership)which risks permanently privatising the service and whether the Council would pressure the National Labour Party to drop their support of TTIP.

Cllr Mary Lea (Cabinet member for healthcare and independent living) responded to the effect that the NHS was under threat from many areas and Labour were committed to repealing the Health and Social Care Act and were also calling for NHS and other public services to be exempt from the TTIP.

The audio is below


My third question was on the subject of Academy Schools. I have concerns over the way such schools are now being promoted as the only way to open a new school, something way beyond their initial remit of rescuing failing state sector schools. In particular it seems to have become a way of some quite dubious 'for profit' or 'faith' organisations to infiltrate state education. The question is quite long but asks, essentially, about the mechanism for choosing such schools. The answer was quite long also and included a promise to provide the information in writing.

The audio is below.


Minutes of Full Council Meeting 3rd September 2014