Vanishing Democracy

A few weeks ago I wrote an article for publication in this month's Now Then Magazine, entitled “Vanishing Democracy” - Has Council Lost Touch with the People?

---

In what might be described as serendipity or, if you're of that mind, the Universe working in a mysterious way, I completed the article just a few days before It's Our City, the Sheffield Community Group launched their plans to create a petition about the City's democratic structure. The petition is aimed at calling on and possibly forcing Sheffield City Council to hold a referendum on changing to a Committee style structure away from the Strong Leader model we currently have.

If you read the article, via the linked title above, you will see that, between the Strong leader model of Governance and the impact of Austerity there has been a withdrawal by the Council into a more centralised decision making process. One that excludes the public (intentionally or not is immaterial) from having the voice and influence over decisions that we once enjoyed.

We all recognise how austerity and the gutting of Local Government finances has debilitated much of what Council's all over the country can do but, the way we respond to that reduced capacity is key to our ability to resist it's worst effects.

---

Greater participation from the city's people, investment in that participation and encouragement of that participation is absolutely vital. Councils need to loosen their obsessive control over so many aspects of what we are allowed to do, as community groups, as volunteers and as individuals wanting to support the needs of our city. They need to get behind local initiatives because they work, not because they fit a 'Party Political' agenda and grasp the nettle that is collaborative working within their decision making. An inability to see beyond the pound notes of a proposal or a deal or an opportunity is detrimental to good decision making. We need, in this City, at this time an appreciation of the 'Social Good' that can be done if we will only take the risk.

No one Political Party, Corporation, Voluntary Organisation or Individual has all the answers and nobody is right all the time. Looking at the way Council and Councillors respond to challenge and criticism, you would not believe that. Defensiveness and a bunker down attitude prevails and that is detrimental to making decisions that really benefit locally, and not just in the public purse, but in people's lives and their wellbeing.

---

I suspect there are few in Council who will read this and agree with me but I am very aware that there are Councillors of the current administration and many members of their political party who are uncomfortable with the way this city is managing itself. We must encourage those people to be more open in challenging the status quo and to put the people of the city before their 'Party' loyalty and the detrimental consequences that begets.

---

To support my work click on the button below.

An Odd Week in Politics.

It's been an odd week. Organising and preparing has been the core of what I've been up to and of course the ever present distraction of social media mayhem amongst public & politicians.

---

As many will know I have launched a fundraising drive to try and secure some income to enable me to continue the work I undertake to push transparency and further accountability in local corridors of power. There is much needs to be done and, although I have had some truly generous subscriptions started and some one off donations I was not expecting, it is not enough to keep the wolf from the door yet. So, please continue to like and share my donations page, set up a subscription if you can afford to and I'll keep you updated on progress.

In the interests of my own transparency I will be setting up a page to thank my supporters but, recognising not everyone will want their name made public in this context, let me know if you prefer privacy. On that page I will also show the current total tally for the subscriptions and donations I receive.

---

In other news, look out for details of an upcoming course for the Workers Education Alliance, about the issues leading up to the expected Mayoral Election in May and looking at how and why devolution has become such a complex issue. I'll be delivering the course with Vicky Seddon, co-ordinator of Sheffield for Democracy and I will post details as they are available.

This will coincide with the process of the Labour Party choosing their candidate for the election and, no doubt, other parties declaring their positions on the Mayoral Election. It is a timely reminder as we are consistently seeing the electorate struggling with the concept of the Regional Mayor and confusing the role as one that has power over the City of Sheffield, which it does not.

The current list of potential candidates for the Labour Mayoral candidacy is in and, not wishing to be party political I will simply say they are unsurprisingly Male, Stale & Pale. All are career politicians and unlikely to rock the boat.

I'm also continuing to put together some plans for creating more active citizens and helping 3rd sector organisations be better at their public engagement and their engagement with our political and other institutions. This means more meetings this week with at least some of those groups that may benefit.

---

Looking forward, tomorrow brings the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting. You might imagine, that with so much comment in press and by numerous politicians about the issue of devolution in South Yorkshire and indeed the whole of Yorkshire, there would be an update planned for the agenda. There is not, it's all business.

This does not, unfortunately, surprise me the SCRCA have, at least in their formal meetings, been tight lipped and unforthcoming with information. There will undoubtedly be comment in the private meeting beforehand but nothing to ruffle the feathers will be included in the 'public' meeting. I will however be there to see what might be gleaned behind the scenes.

---

The fallout around PFI deals is continuing. There is no apparent news about the 250 Carillion jobs in Sheffield but Sheffield celebrated the new flood protection scheme in the Lower Don Valley, completed by Carillion before they went bust, without any mention of the contractor.

The Amey/Streets Ahead PFI continues to make news, between the first MP to visit the scene of a felling protest calling for a halt to the 'unsustainable' programme, to a curious story of allegedly poison tea. All set against continuing violence on the streets and a refusal of the Council's Cabinet to condemn that violence.

---

As I said, an odd week. Look out for a potentially short report on the SCRCA meeting later in the week and more detail on the WEA devolution course.

---

Sheffield Devolution – Decline & Fall?

The 18th September 2017 may have been the final death knell of Sheffield City Region Combined Authority as we know it.

---

I first wrote about the Sheffield City Region devolution deal in October 2015 as it burst forth from behind closed doors. The secret talks held between regional & national politicians resulted in a devolution agreement presented by George Osbourne, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the four leaders of the South Yorkshire Metro Councils. I have written on this deal 12 times since then.

As has been widely reported, the meeting which included those same four Councils failed to agree on further consultation on a scheme of governance that essentially reverted back to the devolution proposals original form.

---

My analysis of the original deal in October 2015 highlighted some serious concerns about the way the deal was written and agreed by the South Yorkshire Councils, without any public consultation, and also drew attention to certain aspects of the deal like the veto power of the Mayor on voting issues and the generally unfinished state of many of the 'powers' to be handed down to the City Region.

Some of the concerns I expressed were taken up by the Council Leaders and, in particular, the removal of a Mayoral Veto became a red line for Sheffield's Julie Dore when it came to finally ratifying the deal. Throughout, despite the signing ceremony with Osbourne, this devolution deal was referred to as a proposal requiring public consultation and ratification by elected Councillors in each Council.

The pressure from HMG however meant the public consultation was hasty and, in some opinions, flawed or even biased and the final ratification was laid before the full Councils of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham & Sheffield in March of 2016, a scant 5 months on.

---

By July 2016 things had changed. Osbourne was no longer Chancellor and the champion of this kind of devolution was gone. The Department for Communities & Local Government now took up the reins of delivering the deals already agreed and the Minister therefore lacked the leverage over the Treasury that Osbourne had enjoyed.

The opportunity for Chesterfield & Bassetlaw, non voting members of the City Region, to become mainstream members and therefore take part in the Mayoral Election came and went. Decisions were delayed by consultation requirements, a Judicial Review called by Derbyshire County Council. Which the Regional Authority lost. Plans for a new consultation and a General Election in June 2017.

A year was lost to this back and forth, meaning the planned election for the Mayor was put back to 2018 and, following a Conservative victory in Derbyshire, the final withdrawal by the non South Yorkshire Councils in June 2017. This abandonment of a supposedly 'appropriate geography' was rationalised by themselves and the Metro Councils but was also an indication of cracks in commitment to the deal.

---

As a result, almost immediately after this in July the City Region chose to delay a final decision so that Barnsley & Doncaster could explore the burgeoning demands for a 'One Yorkshire' devolution deal. The Council Leaders of Barnsley & Doncaster continued at this stage to express commitment to the Sheffield deal but for many commentators, the writing was on the wall. HMG continued to insist that a 'One Yorkshire' devolution discussion was not on the table but an alleged 'coalition of the willing' of 17 of 20 Yorkshire Councils continued to discuss the idea.

Come the 11th September 2017 the City Region Meeting that was supposed to kick off the final leg of the deal, consultation, papers to the Secretary of State, Parliamentary vote, second ratification by the four metro Councils, stumbled once more and put the decision off until the following week at special meeting.

One has to assume frantic back room conversations were taking place, a fact confirmed to me by a senior LG Officer, to avert what was becoming an obvious crisis. At the Extraordinary Meeting on the 18th the axe finally fell. The City Region executive presented a paper on the options available to the four leaders. Each of the leaders stated their positions on the paper's options and with two for and two against the main recommendation, full devolution powers and £30M a year, this option was not agreed.

---

Much has been written on the mood and recriminations within and after the meeting but the simple fact is that any hope of a serious devolution deal in time for Mayoral Elections in May 2018 vanished in that puff of selfish political game playing and righteous indignation. The roots of the fall out between the four Labour Councils will be debated for a while I suspect but the main impact will be felt by the people of the region whose futures are less certain and probably less prosperous as a result of what appears to me to be individual hubris amongst Council leaders from the same political party.

---

What happens now?

---

It would seem that the automatic fall back position is the one outlined in option 3 of the SCRCA report. This would result in an election being held in May 2018 for a Mayor with no powers and no £30M a year. The four Councils would also be responsible for paying for this election, estimated at £1M, and paying for the mayor's Salary and any administrative support, cost unknown. It also reintroduces an element of the Mayoral Veto, with the mayor having to consent to any governance changes such as boundaries and membership of the Region.

Julie Dore, as leader of Sheffield City Council, has indicated conversations are ongoing about all these issues but there is no indication of any progress. However, a week is a long time in politics, so who knows what will happen next? The 'One Yorkshire ' deal is already under pressure as some of the 17 in the coalition of the willing are supporting the HMG position that the deal should not include any of the South Yorkshire Councils. You will not be surprised that these are the Conservative authorities that are expressing doubts.

---

As I have commented on a number of occasions, getting the 17 Yorkshire Councils to agree to anything over the long term when the 4 South Yorkshire Councils are unable to agree where the sun comes up will be like plaiting fog.

Police & Crime Commissioners – Democratically Accountable Police Forces? - Well, Not Really.

Today I attended the Police & Crime Panel meeting in Rotherham. This is the grouping of Councillors and lay people responsible for holding the PCC (Police & Crime Commissioner) to account for the performance, funding and general approach to policing in South Yorkshire. An elected position that was voted for by less than 20% of the electorate.

---

The role of the PCC has never generated much public interest and I suspect most people won't recognise the incumbent, Dr Alan Billings, who holds the post until May following the ultimate resignation of the prior occupant of the post during the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation crisis last year. The PCC however was sold to us, by the Home Secretary of the time as democratic accountability for the police forces. As it turns out of course, that isn't quite the whole story.

I attended to ask a question about the armed police on the streets over the Christmas period in City and town centres across the force area. Happily this is a webcast meeting and the full question is available here , with the PCC's reply and comments from other PCP members.

---

The impression left with me after the replies were as follows;
1 The PCC clearly has no control in operational matters like this and appears to provide little influence, having declined to offer an opinion when 'told' of the decision to deploy armed officers in this way.
2 This deployment was a 'reaction' to the Paris attacks, even though at the last City Council Cabinet meeting I was told there was no intelligence suggesting Sheffield was a target at the time.
3 There appears to be some level of reassurance provided by the deployment, which is in contrast to the significant level of unquiet expressed across social media that was my experience.

My conclusion? As a politician representing, in this instance, the Labour Party as well as the South Yorkshire public I wouldn't want the PCC to have direct control or indeed excessive influence on operational police matters. However, on a matter that so directly affects the public perception of policing in the region I would expect the PCC to have and to express his opinion to the Chief Constable. In particular I would have expected the PCC to make himself aware of any specific threat to the force area and comment on that on behalf of the public.

As a reassurance exercise I think the lack of any comment to either the PCC or the other politicians is a reflection of the lack of knowledge most people have about the PCC and his role. The level of comment I saw on social media suggests they need to look at the deployment in a more formal way to try and tease out a wider range of opinion on the matter, rather than those who volunteer a comment to them or indeed to social media.

---

Overall this seems to confirm the concerns expressed at the inception of the PCC position, that this was a means of passing the responsibility for failures within police forces away from the Home Secretary and the blame for service cuts away from the Chancellor's austerity measures, whilst giving neither the PCC nor the scrutiny committee (Police & Crime Panel) the powers to effectively deliver their roles.

City Region Elected Mayors anyone?

Devonshire Street Demolition – Approved.

---

Many people will now be aware that the proposed demolition of numbers 62 – 70 Devonshire Street was approved by the City Council's Planning Committee today. Some will be worried that this is the end of an era for independent shops on Devonshire Street. I hope to show you that this is not necessarily the case.

---

Round one of the fight is over, round two is about to begin. The heritage groups involved in objecting to this proposal have made it clear that, if they can raise the funds, they will challenge this decision through the full extent of the planning process. This is hugely important because if today has proved one thing it is that there is a hole in the planning provisions of this city that you could drive a coach and horses through.

The way that planning officers today interpreted the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the National laws that govern planning processes) means that developers are now free to do almost anything they want, to any building in Sheffield, heritage asset or not, and the City Council is unlikely to oppose them through fear of litigation. The decision made today about the demolition of Devonshire Street sets a precedent that means almost any protection offered by the NPPF guidelines can be watered down so to prevent developers from threatening to challenge negative decisions.

---

Today's decision was a matter of balance. The planning officer admitted as much, the Councillors on the committee were made aware of that fact and we, as objectors tried to make it clear to them that this meant they did have a real choice. This was not a matter of the committee being unable to legitimately deny the application, it was a case of whether the committee was prepared to accept the potential of a challenge as the price of doing the right thing. They were not, at least not enough of them were.

The reason that this has arisen lays directly at the door of the City Council. Sheffield last legitimised it's planning guidelines in 1998 when it developed what is termed the Unitary Development Plan. This gave planners and developers details of what was and was not allowed within the city when it came to new development, demolition and other planning issues. This UDP has been amended by various other plans since. Specific plans for different quarters of the city, the city centre living strategy, guidance on the night time economy and others. The main provisions however have never been reviewed. Other overall development plans for the city have been developed and discussed but none have been adopted.

---

The UDP is now so old that the city's own planning department will no longer rely on it to protect the city or it's heritage from the ravages of profit hungry developers.

---

It's restrictions and guidelines are considered out of date and therefore almost irrelevant to the planning process. How can we expect planning officers to make the reasonable and robust decisions we need when their guidelines are almost non existent. This needs addressing and addressing soon before even more of the city's heritage is, as one Committee member commented this afternoon, “...slowly nibbled away piece by piece...”. With one notable exception the Labour ranks in the Planning Committee seem ill prepared to stand up for the city and the people that elected them.

Round one is over, round two is just beginning and a whole new battle is looming on the horizon. Is Sheffield up to the challenge?

"‘No time’ to consult public on Sheffield devolution deal" - article in The Star 18th November 2014

Nigel is quoted in today's local Sheffield newspaper The Star (18th November 2014, written by political reporter Ellen Beardmore ) concerning the undemorcratic nature of devolution that is being presented to Sheffield. more information after the link below.

---

Click here for The Star article

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

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

30th September 2013 - Paul Blomfield MP, Public Consultation Meeting, by Nigel Slack

Paul Blomfield is the Member of Parliament for Sheffield Central Constituency and my local MP. Each year he undertakes a week of consultation meetings in the constituency to try to get an idea of the issues facing his electorate and what concerns of theirs he should reflect in his role in Parliament.

http://www.paulblomfield.co.uk/home.html

The meeting started with Paul giving a brief introduction and highlighting that the areas he was tackling currently were around 'fairness'. Issues such as 'Pay Day Lenders' and 'Local Authority Funding'.

He then opened the meeting up to the people in the room, about 20 or so at this meeting, to raise matters of concern. I guess inevitably in this local situation many of the matters raised were not so much matters for MP's but for local Councils and Councillors and so I will only report on the issues that arose with with a national emphasis.

A question was raised about local parking charges.
A question was raised about the closure and impending demolition of Don Valley Stadium.
A question was raised about Early Years funding in the City.

Since Paul is a member of the Business, Skills and Innovation Select Committee, I raised the issue of the 'Supermarket Levy' as it has been called with the following question.

"Using the Sustainable Communities Act to allow local authorities to raise an extra 8.5% business rate on businesses with a rateable value in excess of £500,000 would net Sheffield City Council an extra £6M per year to support local businesses and the local high street. It is supported by the local Federation of Small Businesses and estimated to cost less than 3p per £100 of profits for these national retailers. What is your view on this idea?"
Paul commented that it was always difficult to add to the tax burden on retail companies in the current climate and that the Labour Party were looking at how to potentially raise money for local business rate relief through the corporation tax instead.

I followed that up with the comment that any tax raised centrally would need to be distributed by Central Government and that the point of the Levy would be that, tax raised locally, would be retained locally and spent locally.

A question was raised about two derelict and demolished churches in the area.
A question was raised about educating people about Islam before they are tempted by organisations such as EDL. (English Defence League)
A question was raised about reduced funding for spaces to promote 'Community Cohesion'. This drew a comment about how the troubles in the Middle East are impacting on local Muslim children and is reflected in attitudes locally to Muslims. Paul commented that it is important for politicians and the national press to be careful about the language they use when describing terrorists, acts of violence etc.
A question was raised about the state of Sheffield's roads.

I raised the issue of the impending 'Deregulation Bill' with the following question.

The innocuously titled Deregulation Bill, quietly tabled in draft by Oliver Letwin and Ken Clarke just before the summer break, strips citizens of our right to be consulted before services are closed or privatised. It imposes a ‘growth duty’ on regulators to ensure they act in a more business-friendly manner, which could force health watchdogs like the Care Quality Commission to prioritise ‘economic growth’. And it gives a blanket power to government ministers to repeal inconvenient laws without parliamentary scrutiny. Are you aware of this and what is your view?

Paul commented that the Labour Party were aware of the bill and share the concerns expressed.

A question was raised about what Labour will do to return powers and funding to Local Authorities.
Paul commented that they had started a consultation on what 'critical' powers should be returned to Local Authorities, should Labour regain power. He admitted there was always a problem about Governments wanting to introduce reforms centrally across the country rather than letting Local Government decide.
He also admitted that fundraising powers were a problem. Funds needed to be allocated according to greatest need, but it was difficult to find a simple formula that balanced autonomy with equity.

At this point the meeting drew to a close, the hour allocated being up, but Paul agreed to talk further with the group concerned about the Early Years funding.