The First 100 Days – The Mayor of Sheffield City Region

On the 14th July I attended an event organised by the Centre for Cities, an independent cities think tank. I won't comment on their political colour, check out their website and judge for yourself. It was hosted by the Centre's Chief Executive, Alexandra Jones.

---

The panel for the event were Lord David Blunkett - Chair of the Sheffield City Partnership Board, June Smith – Engineering Employers Federation(EEF) and Dr Craig Berry – Deputy Director of Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute(SPERI). The audience amassed about 50 or so, mostly male, all white and generally over 50, reflecting the general apathy around this whole debate.

Alexandra Jones introduced the event as part 4 of the continuing programme of discussion on the priorities of City Region Mayors, to be elected in May 2017, focussing on the first 100 days of the role. She described the historic nature of the changes and the success of the Manchester Region in securing further deals above and beyond the original devolution agenda. She did also however express concern over the lack of certainty for the whole devolution agenda with ongoing changes in the Cabinet and the acknowledged role of Osbourne as the champion for these deals.

As she was speaking I have to say my own thoughts were more about this not being the least bit historic, as it was not a constitutional change, but just one more in a string of local governments re-organisations dating back to the 70's. My thoughts on the Manchester deals was around the £1Bn hole in their Health budget and their recent accession to the 'Justice' system powers due to have budget cuts of 25 to 30% next year. Devolution of powers or austerity & blame?

---

The first speaker was Lord Blunkett. His first comments were to clearly state that he was not going to put himself forward for the Mayoral job. That list is getting shorter by the day. He then went on to outline three areas he felt the Mayor should concentrate on in the first 100 days. Briefly these were; To have created a manifesto based on the ideals of the Sheffield 'Fairness Commission', to work to heal the divide in the city and the Region and to bring all the Councils together in common cause, recognising that sometimes the rivalries within the region and further afield were counter productive. To reach out to councils & councillors and ensure a definite role for them in the region. To look at the role of the public & civic society and potentially take on the lessons of the 'citizen's assemblies'. To develop something more than just an economic policy role for the Mayor, adding social policies as well. He briefly commented on Europe and envisaged a potential for the Mayor in engaging with EU cities to bridge the 'Brexit' gap and potentially a new Hanseatic League to foster European ties.

---

The next speaker was June Smith of the EEF. Her main points were about the Mayor's role in business and local government working together to optimise growth for the region. Getting planners to understand the needs of businesses and develop pro-business policies. There were also comments about the diversity of businesses in the region and the need for a broader range of businesses to be heard by the region and the Local Enterprise Partnership(LEP) and that the EEF could help with that. Finally that the Mayor's role with transport should ensure it supports growth of business and develop a consistent approach to business support.

---

Dr Craig Berry rounded off the speakers and he started with a warning that the current model of devolution was unlikely to deliver sustainability and growth particularly after Brexit. The theory on which the city regions were expected to succeed, 'agglomeration' around economic benefits, showed no evidence for developing successful cities and that the most successful cities were where the state had an integral role in involving social policies in the regions. He also commented that agglomeration was a divisive type of growth as it meant winners & losers. He asserted that we need to go further in to the basics of power and discuss on a national basis where powers should reside and make devolution plans appropriate to that outcome, before city regions could be truly successful. He was also concerned that the model in place would only further entrench the adversarial politics under which we currently operate, illustrating an assumption that seemed common to the panel that only political parties would field candidates.

---

The chair then opened the discussion to comments and questions from the floor. I won't try to provide comprehensive coverage, as the event will probably be available online in due course. My own comments and question were around the earlier comments I made on the lack of constitutional settlement for these devolution deals and the doubts around Manchester's deal and the transfer of austerity blame as well as powers. My final comment and question was to highlight the forecast by Barclay's that the UK is about to enter a year of recession and what would happen to promised funding if the city region failed to meet growth targets.

The responses were weak and centred around the idea that a positive and ambitious approach to the devolution deals and the Mayoral model will give business confidence enough to continue to invest. The crux of my question about the funding link to growth and the consequences of failing to meet those targets was not responded to by any of the panellists.

---

Where does that leave us? For me I feel the whole devolution agenda is now in serious trouble. Brexit has undermined the funding basis for a great deal of the regions ambitions, particularly for the Universities and the 'knowledge economy' they represent. The sacking of George Osbourne removes the champion of devolution from the game and with a cabinet minister at DCLG (Department of Communities & Local Government) who is a proven centraliser, he is responsible for the decision to close the Sheffield office of the Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) department, there may be precious little enthusiasm for continuing or expanding the whole process of devolution.

We are all whistling in the dark and hoping that the nightmare goes away. Meanwhile uncertainty and chaos reigns in Government and Opposition and the UK continues to drift.

Sheffield City Region Devolution - The Brexit Impact

On Monday 27th June 2016 I attended the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) to hear the answer to a series of questions I put to them about the impact of the Referendum result.

---

The reason I was putting questions at this early stage was to see what the impact of the decision would be on current City Region projects and on the whole 'devolution' process for the region.

These are the questions I asked.

Urgent Questions to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 27th June 2016
Q1 How much of the SCRCA and LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) funding is directly related to EU membership? (value & percentage please)
Q2 What will be the impact of the referendum result on the SCRCA's Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)?
Q3 What will happen to the EU funded business support services?
Q4 What will be the impact on 14-19 year olds on the Employment Support Fund (ESF) support programmes?
Q5 Does the SCRCA expect agreed funding to now be frozen during exit negotiations?
Q6 Does the SCRCA expect 2014-2020 funding already spent to be clawed back?
Q7 How does the referendum result affect the draft scheme papers being considered by this meeting and should these proposals be delayed until the impact is fully appreciated?
Q8 Where does this leave the whole devolution process if the SCRCA are to be underfunded and unable to meet their growth commitments?
Q9 Was any of this discussed with Government ministers before the referendum and if so what was their response?

I admit my questions were given at short notice, over the weekend, but I was hoping that some of the matters in the questions would have been considered before the referendum took place. It certainly was by some as Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) held a series of round table discussions on the subject, one of which was in Sheffield and at which City Council and City region leaders were allegedly present.

I was therefore somewhat surprised to be informed by the Chair of the SCRCA, Sir Steve Houghton, (Leader of Barnsley Council) that none of this information was immediately available and some of the impacts would only come out over several months. I understand the comments on the impacts being slow to emerge but am more than somewhat shocked that they were unable to give a figure on the amount of EU investment we receive in the region. Surely this was information they used in their campaigning during the referendum.

---

At that point I suggested that I thought they would be able to at least answer question 9. The Chair had to check what that question was, (had he not read them before the non-answer I was given?) and then responded that, since the result they'd had discussions with Civil Servants about the devolution process and were advised by them to assume everything would carry on.

That was that. The meeting went on to rubber stamp the rest of the agenda items, setting the stage for the new devolution and the City Region Mayor, with barely a comment from any of the political leadership in attendance.

---

The responses or lack of them indicate to me a level of complacency within the City Region leadership about the referendum itself, the potential for a 'Leave' result and an almost negligent approach to their forward planning. What sort of organisation fails to consider all the potential outcomes of such an historical vote?

The Region and it would seem the Authority meant to be in charge of it are now floundering in the dark and for who knows how long? To carry on putting time and money into a project with such an uncertain future would seem to me to be the height of folly.

Biased Consultation Proposed at Sheffield City Region Meeting?

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 26th October 2015

This meeting turned out to be more informative than I expected. Not, however, because of the information volunteered by the chair of the meeting but because I could see, through the door of the meeting room, the presentation they received about the proposed consultation on the new 'Devolution Deal'.

---

There is nearly always a pre-meeting on these occasions, an opportunity for the members to discuss matters they don't wish the public to hear. This means that when the public portion of the meeting arrives they are able to race through the agenda in practised style, with little potential for controversy or need for debate.

It leaves something of a gap in the idea of transparency and open decision making. We do not get to see our representatives in action on issues that may cause disagreement, giving a false idea of an authority in complete consensus.

---

So, what did I learn from this pre-meeting slideshow? I learned that the proposed consultation is in danger of being flawed and biased. The comments on the presentation indicate a bias towards a positive message on the 'deal' and emphasising why the 'deal' is right for the City Region. Potential therefore that the documents in the consultation will be positive on acceptance of the 'deal', rather than neutral and equitable.

Phrases like “good deal”, “supported by the private sector”, “City Region at the forefront of the Northern Powerhouses”, leading the way”, “new money – new powers”, “protects sovereignty of Councils”, “residents & businesses well served by negotiations”, "Mayor & Combined Authority as partners”, “appropriate checks and balances”, all lead to the conclusion that the consultation is being seen as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a process to enable our representatives to assess our point of view before making up their own minds.

At the end of the full meeting Vicky Seddon (Sheffield for Democracy) and myself took the new officer employed for this role to task. We emphasised the need for the consultation information received by the public to be unbiased and that if members of the Combined Authority wished to voice support for the 'deal' that should be a matter for them rather than for the supposedly neutral public servants carrying out the consultation.

It is unfortunate that the City Region put an officer in this position in the first place and that their desire to emphasise the positive aspects of the deal should be considered as something appropriate for official papers about the consultation. The officer appeared to take this on board and agreed to feed our comments back to the Combined Authority but I suspect we will have to keep a very close eye on this consultation.

---

In the main meeting I asked three questions related to the 'Devolution Deal'.

1 Will the Combined Authority clarify the exact voting arrangements for each Council, constituent & non-constituent? The Chair's response was (in short) that only constituent members need to consent to the 'Mayor' aspect of the 'deal' but that the 4 constituent members, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster & Rotherham, and the non-constituent members form N Derbys & N Notts would need to consent to the 'deal' in the Combined Authority decision.

2 Can the Combined Authority comment on the detail of the timescale from this point onwards? Response was that the Combined Authority would be asked to endorse the 'proposed deal' today. The City Region would then carry out consultation during November and December (but dates were not given) before individual Councils were expected to make their decision between January and March of 2016 and the final City Region decision would have to be made before 16th March. The 'deal' would them be implemented from 1st April (interesting choice April Fools Day).

3 Can the Combined Authority assure the public that the next draft of the 'deal' will be written with less openness to interpretation? (Para 4 seems to offer a Mayor's veto) Response was that the final document will be a 'Ministerial Order' which will be very detailed and technical and that all the relationships in the proposal were still subject to further negotiation. There is no intention at this time to give the Mayor a veto.

The final two sentences are a bit concerning, we are to be consulted on a draft rather than a final agreement (what changes may be made in secret, again) and a half hearted assurance on Mayoral veto powers (at this time?).

---

The meeting later progressed to endorse the proposal, subject to the consultation etc. James Newman, Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership, (private sector businesses) commented that the LEP would undertake a similar consultation with local businesses over a similar timescale.

The meeting did nothing to assuage my concerns about aspects of this 'deal' and raised even more concerns over the neutrality of the consultation process. Keep an eye out for more in the next few weeks.

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.

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

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