About This Blog

The public should know all we can about the business of the decision makers that affect our lives, our wallets and our democracy. This is a record of my efforts to try and improve the levels of transparency and accountability within Sheffield City Council and others. To shine a light on how decisions are made and where the money goes. If I can also help others to find their own voice and influence along the way, then that is a bonus.

Showing posts with label NHS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NHS. Show all posts

Monday, 18 May 2020

Covid-19 – It's about what we don't know!

I am trying to get a grip on my response to Covid19 and the lock down. Some of you may be aware that I commented relatively early on about the response from Government on Facebook with a view that it was too little too late . I am still of that opinion and everything HMG has done since that time has only reinforced my understanding of their incompetence and an almost religious adherence to saving the economy above the people.

The latest change of 'emphasis' with the new slogan and amended advice is seemingly designed to do one thing, make us each responsible for the failure or success of the 'Fight against the Virus'. Government are abrogating the responsibility for our public health to us as individuals and no doubt will soon lay the responsibility for care homes and schools at the door of Local Government, more blame to go around. Government must not be allowed to get away with making the public responsible for their mistakes and failed ideologies. They continue to dissemble about their role in this chaos and, as individuals within Government simply lie about what has been said and done.

For myself the old adage from Socrates' Apology seems apt;

“... that what (which) I do not know I do not think I know ...” [from the Henry Cary literal translation of 1897]

The one overriding aspect of this virus is that we still have so much to learn. Anybody who states they have the measure or the solution to this pandemic is a fool or a liar. This returns us once more to the performance of our Government. Throughout, the Government have adopted the usual Johnson/Cummings approach of 'Lie – Lie – Run away'. Their narrative on the comings and goings of “The Science” have been contradictory and misleading. The very agency intended to provide independent advice (SAGE) was effectively suborned by political influence and considerations and the Government experts rolled out for the cameras were soon undermined and exposed as parroting the establishment story, attempting to present the Government approach to the Pandemic as reasonable and measured. This is no better typified than by the debacle of whether the Government was following the 'Herd Immunity' strategy or not.

It was very clear from the beginning that the Governments key aim was protection of the economy (and their corporate supporters) rather than the safety of the populace.

We, as a country had the opportunity to be ahead of the game when we saw the devastation being caused across Europe as the virus took hold. Our Government and the other authorities failed us.


Difficulties of dealing with a 'novel' virus – how our knowledge continues to evolve

We have from the start failed to give enough attention to that one little word that prefixed the first comments about the virus – 'novel'. As a novel Coronavirus it should have been quickly identified and widely discussed as a very different form of a well known type of contagion. We are all familiar with the common cold and the flu, also coronaviruses, but placing this new virus in these familiar terms was a damning and dangerous rhetoric to reassure a worried populace. It made the thing seem less scary and more manageable.

Whilst it was still far away in 'foreign parts' we could comfort ourselves that it only really had consequences for the old and those with underlying medical problems. Those risk groups would die through complications familiar to pneumonia, drowning in their own lungs and by the fatal overstressing of their previous conditions. So the older population was deemed disposable, ill older patients (probably some infected with Covid19) were dispatched to nursing and social care homes to spread the virus in their own age group and restrict the impact on the economy and the NHS.

Then we found that younger people were suffering both from the same symptoms and also dying from unexpected blood clotting issues causing Heart Attacks & Strokes. Surely they already had health issues. Well I guess if you call being 'frontline staff' in the health service or hailing from the Black and Minority Ethnic population a 'health issue' you could be onto something but this just showed a vector for the spread of the virus and the deaths were across the board.

At least the children were safe, the virus seemed to skip affecting them, or did it? A new and disturbing series of deaths in children suffering some form of multiple organ failure (similar to Kawasaki's Disease) has spoiled that theory. Further recent stats from the Office of National Statistics indicates that the rate of infections is similar across all age groups and, at the very least, this means children are infection vectors for Covid19. The more we uncover about the way this virus spreads and the impact throughout the population the clearer it is that we cannot rely on the old way of doing things and we must be very aware of the impacts of Government policy aimed at protecting the economy before the population.


The Pandemic – what is our exposure?

So what is our exposure? This is another thing we do not know. It is possible that in the early days when this Government did some testing we might have had some idea about our levels of contagion. Since widespread testing was stopped (probably because the figures were too scary) we have no definitive proof of our exposure to the pandemic. Oddly in Sheffield we have a better idea as our local Health agencies tested more than any other area of the country, which lead to the city being seen as a bit of a hot spot until it was explained that, the more you test the more you discover infected people. Yet even now we still have poor community testing programme and the infrastructure to 'Test – Track & Trace' is way behind where it should be.

As a result the Government figures for infections are widely disbelieved and even the figures for deaths (we only started counting deaths in care homes a matter of days ago) is believed to be seriously under-reported. Only those tested count for official figures and my own household has one, potentially two, people who were infected but did not require medical intervention (therefore not counted).

Official Figures; ONS Figures; Unofficial Figures;

Effectively this is another area where our knowledge is incomplete or flawed and yet decisions of national impact and of Life & Death are being made using the most optimistic of these figures. (The black line)


Test & Trace?

Another part of the puzzle that our Government chose to avoid and is only now very late in adopting is the idea of Test & Trace. It has been clear from the off that those countries which responded early to the need for testing and chose to trace contacts of infected persons have had a lower impact from the pandemic. The World Health Organisation has supported this approach from the early stages and it is the only thing that will allow us to really understand our susceptibility to a long and deadly series of additional waves of Covid19.

We are, in this country, in a 'debate' about opening up our schools again. A comment from Government did say that testing and tracing would be available to any child or teacher that started to show symptoms after the return to classrooms. I'm going to let that sit for a moment. … Symptoms show only several days after infection and during which pause the person is contagious to all around them. Government (Boris & Gove) talk about the great British Common Sense, I see none of that in this approach. I see a Government sacrificing teachers and children to their God of the economy. Teachers should not be expected to put their lives on the line for the sake of getting their pupils' parents back to work. The evidence of the impact from one Bristol school should be enough to kill this idea stone dead.

Even the Governments plans for tracing are falling apart, as first they tried to get one of Dominic Cummings pals to create the system and then it became clear that the public do not trust our Government to keep our data safe and therefore will not adopt the 'Phone App' system.


Comparisons – useful or not?

The UK has recently recorded the highest death toll in Europe (not the EU but the continent) and, as a result our Government has now stopped showing the UK figures in comparison to our European neighbours. Is this a cynical attempt not to look bad in the press and to the populace or are comparisons not really that useful? I would simply ask what use are a set of isolated figures if you have nothing to measure your efforts against?

By comparing what we do to combat this pandemic and the results of those efforts against other countries allows for two things. One we get to see how what we do, whether similar or different, changes the impact on the pandemic. Two, we can learn from those that have better or worse results than we do and therefore save more lives.

This and many other useful graphs & comparisons can be found here at a Blog by Chris Rust

Conspiracy Opinion – a danger to us all?

A healthy scepticism of the motives of Governments is a good thing in a democracy. Falling for every hare brained conspiracy leading down a rabbit hole of social media opinion is a different matter. (Yes I am aware I mixed a hare metaphor with a rabbit metaphor) So far the Covid19 pandemic has been blamed on 5G phone tech, the Chinese, The Americans and probably if I looked hard enough we would find the Illuminati and Aliens in the mix. The evidence for all these 'beliefs' is sketchy at best and outrageously comical at worst. The key word there is belief, since by admitting to a belief most people will never be disabused of the righteousness of that belief. It triggers a response of cognitive dissonance, known as belief disconfirmation ;

“The contradiction of a belief … causes cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by changing the challenged belief, yet, instead of effecting change, the resultant mental stress restores psychological consonance to the person by misperception, rejection, or refutation of the contradiction, seeking moral support from people who share the contradicted beliefs or acting to persuade other people that the contradiction is unreal.” (Eddie Harmon-Jones, 2002) or to put it on shorter and pithier words; “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.” (Bertrand Russel)

Yes, there are conspiracies in this world but I would be surprised if any of the actual conspiracies are openly touted on Social Media. Spreading and giving oxygen to theories that lack credible evidence or even basic substance is dangerous in times of global tension and a deadly pandemic so, be careful what you believe and be even more careful what you promote. You have complete license to believe any dangerous conspiracy you want but you have no right to inflict harm on others as a result of that belief. 2000+ years of religious wars anyone??


The second wave? & When will it be over?

The idea of the second wave (and possibly more) of Covid19 is one that was established early, one of the few things we can be confident about, following the evidence of the 1917/18 Influenza pandemic. The release of lock down conditions will result in a second wave of infections and deaths. In the Influenza pandemic this was in many cases worse than the first wave and the result of relaxing restrictions too early. Yet we seem to have learned little judging by the Governments approach. Even before the incidence of deaths has dropped to the level where the lock down was imposed are they talking of starting to ease restrictions. With parts of the country still experiencing infection rates above Government targets the economy is being championed and people who can sit safe in their mansions are urging people back to work and into harms way for the sake of the corporate economy.

As for all this chaos being over? That may never happen. If a vaccine is discovered then there is the opportunity to radically reduce the impact of the pandemic but we have not yet found a successful vaccine for a coronavirus. It may be that we have to accept a new 'mutation' of the virus on a regular basis and the search therefore for a new vaccine. Influenza requires a shot every year, partly to aim at the most likely strain for that season, and partly to address the fact that one shot confers only a limited window of immunity. How might this change our society in the long term?


Last word

As a last contribution I reiterate my words from the beginning of this piece; “Anybody who states they have the measure or the solution to this pandemic is a fool or a liar.” We are still learning what this virus is and what it can do. We should not underestimate it's 'novel' nature and that science and society is struggling to catch up. One thing I would like to think is that we will arrive at a society that replaces the religion of economy and money with a society based on recognising that we have enough for all in this world, if only we are willing to share. I have no confidence in that outcome but I will keep working for that in my own city and region so long as I can usefully do so. So remember and beware;


“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” -Asimov

“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong. “ — Voltaire, in other words, "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

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.

Saturday, 11 October 2014

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

Saturday, 4 October 2014

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

Friday, 3 October 2014

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