Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting - 9th March 2018

Unusually the meeting started late, nearly 15 minutes late. Are we to assume the 'secret' part of the meeting had some controversy? Certainly the public meeting was down to be all business, despite a public question from me.

---

The formal public meeting started with the usual preamble around apologies, items for the exclusion of press etc. Interestingly and for me disappointing there was a complete lack of any potential or declared Mayoral candidates at the meeting. This is the Authority they will be leading after the election in May and they missed the opportunity to attend and see the theatre for themselves.

I can say that the candidate for the Yorkshire Party, Mick Bower of Rotherham, has attended several previous meetings but not a single candidate or potential candidate for the major parties has ever, as far as I know, attended a City Region Meeting. The next meeting of the SCRCA is planned for April 30th, during election Purdah, so this was their only opportunity to see the Region Leaders in action before the election.

---

The only people in the 'public gallery' a grand title for half a dozen chairs against one wall of the meeting room, were myself and two ladies from Moorends, in the Doncaster Borough. They were there to present a petition from the village about bus services. It was nice to see them there, in the right place to ask about Public Transport issues and that they got at least a partial response.

The Chair, Chris Read (Leader of Rotherham Borough) acknowledged the petition, thanked them and promised to refer it to the Transport Committee (part of the SCRCA structure). Ros Jones – Mayor of Doncaster, responded to say she supported the petition and the need for a service to Moorends. Julie Dore – Leader of Sheffield City Council also responded to support the petition being put to the Committee and to suggest, if they had one, to Doncaster's Bus Partnership.

---

My question was next up; What Skills Training or Apprenticeship contracts for SCR are currently delivered by Learndirect Ltd?

An Ofsted inspection in 2017 found the company “inadequate” and a Government DfE spokeswoman said: "The government is ending Learndirect's contract to provide apprenticeships and adult education, because of its failure to meet the high standards expected.”

What will be the impact of this report and this statement on SCR learners?

BBC News Report 2nd March 2018

The response came from the Chair, Chris Read to the effect that; Officers confirmed this is a National Contract so no direct delivery of services for SCRCA by Learn Direct but there will be some impact on local Learners. That information was not immediately available but Officers would be tasked to provide the detail.

A reasonable answer, I'll await the complete response.

---

The meeting was settling into it's usual routine of brief reports from Officers on financial, committee and Executive Board operations. Few matters of interest though, those with a good memory, will note that the initial forecast of costs for the Mayoral Election has risen from £1M to nearly £2M but no comment on why and no query of this from any of the political leaders in attendance.

---

On the Capital Funding side of things it looks likely the CA will be underspent by nearly £10M and officers are now negotiating(?) to retain this money for next year rather than return it to Government. In this same report we may have found this month's source of irritation between the Council Leaders

"2.19 Local transport capital pot This element is a proposed new component of the South Yorkshire transport capital programme and accounts for 8% of the overall programme. It is proposed to split the pot (£3.5m) across Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham according to their population estimates. Further details about this element of the programme can be found in a separate report which will be presented to CA Leaders on 9th March 2018."

---

Julie Dore started by asking where this £3.5M came from and what was the rationale that allocated the money to only 3 of the relevant districts on a per capita proportionate basis? Also were there any other examples of where this had been done before?

Response from Officers indicated this was part of the overall borrowing in the Capital Programme for the Passenger Transport Authority. The programme of spending for Sheffield City had been agreed and this further amount was therefore allocated just to Barnsley Doncaster & Rotherham. Julie Dore reiterated her need for a rationale behind that decision if the overall South Yorkshire PTE pot was where this money came from. It is to be noted the previous reports do not refer to this 'pot' being restricted to only 3 of the 4 Councils.

---

It was at this point that moods deteriorated and pointed comments were made over the cost of Supertram (benefitting only Sheffield) as a negative impact on SCR budgets and that Barnsley taxpayers deserved this pot. Barnsley and Doncaster were essentially saying Sheffield got enough and they wanted something just for the smaller distrticts. Rotherham tried to keep the peace but when it came to a recorded vote, the three districts outvoted Sheffield. Was £3.5M worth the further bad feeling this will generate between Council Leaders?

---

The rest of the reports passed by without comment or questions from leaders again and the meeting was wound up soon after.

Next Meeting - 30th April 2018, 2pm, AMP – This falls during election Purdah and may be subject to change.

---

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 29th January 2018

The agenda for the meeting was all business and this suggested to me a timescale within the half hour. Not unusual for this increasingly pointless bit of theatre.

---

Before the meeting however, I was seated in the waiting area chatting with Nigel Brewster, Vice Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership (the business end of the City Region) and a partner in the Brewster Pratap Recruitment Consultancy.

We were both bemoaning the pretence of the 'public' meeting and he expressed a concern that it made the Sheffield City Region political membership look like they either don't care or that all the decisions had already been made and this was nothing more than the public facing, so called, engagement. I agreed with this comment and that the meeting behind closed doors that takes place before the 'public' meeting was where any disagreements would be aired. For me this means that the Combined Authority are not serious about public engagement and indeed are trying to work around the 'problem' of people wanting to know what is going on.

I highlighted the fact that despite the turmoil around the devolution project in general and then the collapse of Carillion, neither of these items had made it to the agenda. Having to put questions to the meeting seven days in advance means that unexpected issues cannot be brought up for some seven weeks or more. Hardly a responsive or flexible public engagement strategy.

---

We were then called into the 'public' meeting. The chair was taken, for the first time officially, by Cllr Chris Read Leader of Rotherham elected last meeting to replace Barnsley's Cllr Steve Houghton. All the nine leaders appeared to be in place and the meeting began, once a missing Secretariat minute taker was back from his comfort break.

Items 1 to 6 on the agenda went past a brisk pace, they generally do being about voting rights, declarations of interest and exclusion of press & public items. Item 7 held a minor positive for active citizenry. In his brief time in the pre meeting mingling Nigel Brewster had clearly brought some of my comments to the attention of Cllr Julie Dore (Sheffield Leader) and, during this item on questions by members, she butted in before it was glossed over to ask a question, on my behalf about the impact of Carillion's collapse on the City Region. There was a bit of a stumble but, interestingly one of the Officers was able to respond that, fortunately, there were no outstanding contracts with Carillion within the City Region's remit. My thanks to both Nigel Brewster and Julie Dore for this helpful approach.

Beyond that the rest of the items on the agenda galloped by with a handful of approvals to previously prepared reports and the meeting closed after just 15 minutes.

---

Again the meeting came across as a piece of theatre and the lack of discussion or comment about the content of the reports being presented reinforces the appearance of a bureaucratic machine rather than a collaborative public authority. The unexpected response to the question at item 7 was illuminating, suggesting they can deal with questions at little or no notice if they wish to.

---

Next meeting is the 12th March 2018.

---

Public Protests & Trade Union Law?

On Wednesday 2nd November, as I was preparing for the usual monthly Full Council meeting, my little corner of Facebook lit up with a story I found hard to believe. It appeared that South Yorkshire Police were about to use Trade Union law to move on members of the public protesting about the felling of Street Trees.

---

The obvious wrongness of this, for me, was glaring. These were not 'flying pickets' or aggressive, intimidating thugs. They were mostly middle aged, middle class protesters hanging about under a tree. The Police attempted to move on the protesters by warning them they were in breach of s.241 of the Trade Union Act of 1992 and would be liable to arrest if they refused.

The wording of the Act is as follows;

s241 Trade Union Act Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 241 – Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise.
(1)A person commits an offence who, with a view to compelling another person to abstain from doing or to do any act which that person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority—
(a)uses violence to or intimidates that person or his spouse or civil partner or children, or injures his property,
(b)persistently follows that person about from place to place,
(c)hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof,
(d)watches or besets the house or other place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to any such house or place, or
(e)follows that person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.

---

I have seen no evidence in the various videos and photographs of the events that suggest “Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise” from any of the protesters, the Amey employed workforce in the immediate area seem to be enjoying a quiet cuppa. This law is also clearly aimed at restricting the actions of Trade Unionists and not restricting the right to peaceful protest by members of the Public.

In the end two protesters agreed to stick it out and were duly arrested by the Police. They were then held for seven hours before being charged (even though the police computer didn't appear to have a code for their offence) and summonsed to appear at the Magistrates Court in Sheffield on the 1st of December.

(Click on the above image which will take you to the video of the arrest on the STAG Facebook group or click here -
https://www.facebook.com/groups/392913244219104/permalink/652496328260793/)

---

Having heard about the events of the morning, I asked a question at the Council Meeting; “Does Council agree with Trade Union Law being used by Police to prevent protest by and to arrest members of the public? Who provided the Police with the sheaf of papers and inspiration for this tactic, Amey, Council or some other?”

Julie Dore – Leader of the Council responded very adamantly to the question, saying that she did not agree with this law at all and did not agree (with it being used in this way).

Bryan Lodge – Cabinet Member for the Environment followed up by saying that, on receipt of the question from me, he had asked the question of Amey and of his Contract Management Team. Both denied having instigated this tactic and therefore the Police must have come up with this themselves.

Talking later to one of those arrested he commented that, before the Police came to talk to the protesters, they had been in conversation with Amey Supervisors for some time, this casts doubt on the answer from Bryan Lodge and warrants further questioning.

Coincidentally, today I was chatting with a friend who attended the Police & Crime Commissioner's
, Public Accountability Board meeting on Friday and brought the matter up with the new Chief Constable. In that conversation it became clear that the Chief Constable was unhappy at the use of this tactic as well, the fallout from that could be interesting.

---

The wider question of course is, who do the police work for? Is it the Public or the Corporations?

Then we should consider the potential for interference with Article 11 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to protest and to freedom of association. According to Liberty, “The right to peaceful assembly cannot be interfered with merely because there is disagreement with the views of the protesters or because it is likely to be inconvenient and cause a nuisance ...” and “There is a positive obligation on the State to take reasonable steps to facilitate the right to freedom of assembly, and to protect participants in peaceful demonstrations from disruption by others. “ This includes protection from the Police, Army or the State itself.

Article 11 seemed to take precedence when it came to protests in Rotherham by the EDL, even though that was disrupting the lawful pursuit of their business for many of the towns shopkeepers. The EDL marches also included a significant threat to public order, something not present at the Marden Road incident.

---

A current South Yorkshire Police advertisement on their website asks the question “Whose pulling your strings?” That is a very good question.

Full Council Meeting on 5th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

The meeting kicked off as usual but this time the public gallery was full. There was a significant contingent of the GMB Union members currently striking against the Green Company, who run the recycling centres in the city as sub-contractors for Veolia, the outsourcing company. In addition there was a petition to be presented about the outsourcing of the Learning Disability Service and with over 5,000 signatures this triggers a debate in council.

Soon enough public petitions and questions came around and there were lots of petitions this time. Subjects were; Devonshire Street shops demolition, Tesco Express planning application in Stannington, Re-instatement of free city centre shuttle bus service, Misuse of Totley Scout Hut, and School crossing patrol at St Anne's Park School.

---

The meeting then moved on to Public Questions. Again lots of questions from a full public gallery, inevitably meaning I would be towards the end. As a regular there it seems to me that this means the 'new' people get to ask their questions first. This is fine in general terms but sometimes leads to boredom in the cheap seats and those of us at the end of the process are less likely to be able to preface or contextualise our questions, which leads to uncertainty in answers and the liklihood of additional questions being needed at a later date.

Questions were on the subjects of; Protocols of child protection, Employment and economic development, Gritting of Blindside Lane, Questions grouped by the GMB Union members on the strike at Sheffield's waste recycling centres and the management by 'Green Company' on a sub-contract from Veolia, The privatisation of the 'Supported Living Service', Arbourthorne TARA concerns, The Sheffield Federation of TARA's and council recognition, and the roadworks for the new Sainsbury's store in Hillsborough and consequent problems for local traders.

---

Finally it came around to my questions. My first was aimed at Julie Dore (Leader) and concerned the recent News that Greater Manchester Combined Authority had signed a so called devolution deal with the Treasury to give them certain extra spending responsibilities in exchange for accepting an elected City Region Mayor.

"How does the council think of Manchester jumping ship on the other Northern cities?
Do the council agree with the approach that gives business leaders a chance to vote on these devolution proposals but no vote for the public that will pay for them?
Which experts and business leaders from Sheffield will be attending?
Do the two remaining councils involved see the trap that Manchester is being led into?
Does the council agree with the potential imposition of a directly elected Mayor that we rejected in 2012?
Will the council accept administering the hateful welfare to work programme?"

To my surprise the response was from Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills & Economic Development) who outlined the benefits of serious devolution and the fact that the Manchester deal was lacking these benefits. He also commented negatively on the idea of an elected mayor. There was however no comment on the Northern Futures meeting the next day or on who from Sheffield would be attending.

---

Full Audio below.

---

My second question was on some planning matters. Trying to avoid asking for comment on specific proposals in order not to step on legal procedural toes.

"The planning system is currently mired in controversy and poor public relations and two particular proposals are causing the bulk of the problems. I will refrain from mentioning them or asking direct questions about them, for fear of being told they can't be answered without jeopardising the planning process. So, in general; When a planning application on the council's website indicates a determination deadline date, what does that mean?"

And;

"Where a planning guideline indicates a ratio of different usage types within an area, ie between A1 and A3 uses, will the recommendation by officers and the decision of the planning committee on this aspect of the proposal be based on, the current guidelines, guidelines proposed but rejected by the council on some previous occasion or a developers feeling as to the likely future guidelines yet to be tabled or put to a council decision making process?"

Cllr Bramall's response was exactly what I hoped to elicit with this question. To the first part he responded that transparency and open procedure was all important in planning matters. This gives me the confirmation I need to press for greater information in the early stages of applications and a more balanced availability of Officers to 'objectors' as well as 'developers'. Something to pursue at my personal meeting with Cllr Bramall.

---

Full Audio below.

---

My final question was about the appalling turnout of voters at the PCC by-election and an unedifying, almost snide argument witnessed on Twitter between a cabinet councillor and a councillor of the Green Party, about the ethics of voting or not voting as an elected representative.

"The PCC election was neither a particularly legitimate expression of democracy with less than 15% turnout and a winner with less than 8% of the electorate voting for them, nor a value for money exercise costing approximately £11.50 per vote cast. In addition Doncaster reported that of their electorate only 3.5% voted at the ballot box, the remaining 11.5% being postal votes. What was the ratio of postal to ballot box votes in Sheffield?"

And;

"With 86% of the electorate not voting, no party was in a position to take the moral high ground about who did or did not publicly support voting. The supporters of all parties stayed away from the ballot box and it seems unlikely they listened to any of the politicians pro or anti voting in this particular election. Can the council please urge all politicians to act more responsibly over such issues?"

Cllr Julie Dore responded to this question and apologised for not having the election figures to hand that I asked for but she would get them from the Returning Officer. On the second part of the question she was unable to offer direct comment as lack of context meant it was unclear but she did illustrate her own opinion on the responsibilities of elected officials to engage with the ballot box.

For me the question remains whether the act of not voting is still a means of engaging with the process?

---

Full Audio below.

---

At this point I had to leave and poor Martin Brighton was still asking his question the meeting already having been running for two hours and with an important debate on road safety about to start which was triggered by a large petition. This again illustrates the need to look seriously and urgently at webcasting council meetings. Then those unable to attend at all, or those who found it necessary to leave before the end can still see and comment on the democracy, or lack of it, in action in our council meetings.

Dec 13th, 2012 - Sheffield Live! Radio, "Nigel Slack discusses Council outsourcing of public services to private companies."

This post is in 2 parts. The first part is Nigel Slack's interview followed in the second part by Sheffield Labour Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources response.

Nigel - "This was my first interview with Sheffield Live, continuing my efforts to bring the information I had been able to gather about ‘Public Services and Private Profits’ to a wider audience and to begin to generate a better informed debate on the facts about outsourcing, how it’s decided upon, how the contracts are managed and where the money goes. It is followed by an interview with Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member of the City Council responsible for Finance and Resources, in response to my interview."

Interview on Sheffield Live! radio.
Date of interview - December 13th, 2012.
Sheffield Live! interviewer - Laurence Peacock 
Interviewee - Nigel Slack 
Length -  20 mins 29 secs
Link - Sheffield Live! radio - http://www.sheffieldlive.org/
Link - SoundCloud file -  http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock/nigel-slack-discusses-council
Contact Nigel Slack - nrslack@aol.com
Contact Laurence Peacock - info@sheffieldlive.org

"Nigel Slack discusses Council outsourcing of public services to private companies."

---

Interview on Sheffield Live! radio.
Date of interview - January 22nd, 2013.
Sheffield Live! interviewer - Laurence Peacock
Interviewee - Sheffield Labour Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources
Link - Sheffield Live! radio - http://www.sheffieldlive.org/
Length -  
part 1 - 15 mins 50 secs
part 2 - 9 mins 54 secs 
part 3 - 8 mins 48 secs
Link - SoundCloud files x3
part 1 - http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock-1/councillor-bryan-lodge
part 2 - http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock-1/councillor-bryan-lodge-1
part 3 - http://soundcloud.com/laurence-peacock-1/part3
Contact Bryan Lodge - bryan.lodge@sheffield.gov.uk
Contact Laurence Peacock - info@sheffieldlive.org

"Councillor Bryan Lodge discusses outsourcing, transparency and council budgets. Part 1"


"Councillor Bryan Lodge discusses outsourcing, transparency and council budgets. Part 2"


"Councillor Bryan Lodge discusses outsourcing, transparency and council budgets. Part 3"

Nov 2012 - NOW THEN Magazine #56 , "Outsourcing. Public Services, Private Profits" by Nigel Slack

"Outsourcing. Public Services, Private Profits" by Nigel Slack
In Sheffield's Now Then Magazine issue no.56 - November 2012

Nigel - "My first article for Now Then magazine about ‘Public Services, Private Profits’, beginning my efforts to bring the information I was gathering to a wider audience to develop a more open debate on the subject. It looks at who provides our public services (bins, road repairs, care homes etc) how much we spend on these private companies and tries to address how much profit they make out of the public purse."

Contact Nigel Slack - nrslack@aol.com
Contact for Now Then magazine - sam@nowthenmagazine.com

To see the article follow this link or click on the magazine cover below
http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-56/outsourcing/