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.

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

City Region Elected Mayors anyone?

Not My Sunday Sermon 3, by Nigel Slack.

---

For today's evening offering I wanted to try and give some idea as to why I'm fundraising to be able to do what I do full time. In other words, a brief update on what I've been making happen since I started this campaign.

---

Over the last six weeks I have, essentially been doing my Public Interest work almost full time. In that six weeks I've been to 13 political meetings including Full Council meetings, Cabinet meetings, individual meetings with cabinet councillors, an interview with the 'Sheffield Star', two Hustings events for the PCC election, and attended Public meetings on Planning Issues and the City's Budget Conversation, amongst others.

So far I've published 19 articles to my Blog site, had an article published in Now Then Magazine, another, an interview with them is to be published on December 3rd, had an interview with Ellen Beardmore published in 'The Sheffield Star' newspaper and talked on BBC Radio Sheffield about the post of the PCC and the by-election.

I was also interviewed by Max Munday alongside Scott Lavery, from SPERI (Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute) of the University of Sheffield, on Sheffield Live TV, talking about the current so called 'devolution' deal on offer to the City Regions and how little it resembles the actual devolution ceded to Scotland through legislation.

---

During that short six weeks I've managed to to create some waves. My main achievement has been to drag the 'Devolution' issue into the light of public scrutiny. The secret discussions between Councils and the Government on what is being termed 'Devolution' has been brought out into the open. The fact that both Government and Councils are denying the public any knowledge of the terms of this deal or any say in the process has now been publicised.

In addition, I've managed to get a Cabinet Councillor to confirm that transparency and openness are the most important things in the planning process and the commitment of another Cabinet Councillor to regreening Meadowhead roundabout, previously desecrated by Highways Department 'improvements'. Finally I was able to act as a catalyst for the objections to the proposed demolition plans for the Devonshire Street shops that include 'Rare and Racy', a legendary local record & book store, along with other independent traders.

---

I think that's a good record for six weeks work. The trouble is, unless this campaign generates significantly more money than to date, this level of work is unsustainable. To give you some idea of the difference. To get the information I needed to 'out' the devolution deal I had to attend two Council meetings, a meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board and a meeting of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) in Barnsley. I asked nine or ten different questions in those meetings and my experience of who answered those questions and how they were answered enabled me to understand that something was happening that was considered not for public consumption. My persistence, however, meant that by the time of the SCRCA meeting there was little choice but for them to admit to being in discussions with the Government and give a brief report on where the discussions had reached.

That amounts to some 10 or 12 hours over two weeks. All daytime meetings during normal working hours. A level of coverage that can only be achieved by someone working on a full time basis. Without this level of access and scrutiny the actions and decisions of City Council and of regional decision makers like the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, The Sheffield Executive Board and the Police and Crime Panel will go largely under the radar. Some may believe that newspapers should be doing this job and they probably should but without bigger staffs and unless they can risk their editors wrath following the boring stuff as well as the sexy stuff, they will never be able to do it effectively. This is bad news for the public and bad news for the city.

---

That is a fairly simplistic explanation of why it is so important that someone like me does something like this as a professional. Because that is the only way to develop the knowledge and the instincts for effective scrutiny. I therefore appeal to each and every person who reads this to contribute to my campaign. Without support I cannot continue at the full time and professional level that this city's public deserve, if at all. A small donation from many people will enable me to continue and to keep our community leaders as honest as possible and their decision making as transparent as possible. In the end, if you don't contribute who will?

Police & Crime Panel meeting on 19th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

The Police & Crime Panel is the body that is intended to provide scrutiny of the Police & Crime Commissioner. The legislation that created it and the PCC set the panel up more as a support for the PCCs's work, as representative of the public engagement and as such the crutiny powers that the panel has are very limited. This became very apparent during the crisis over the previous PCC and his refusal to stand down. It then became clear that this panel had no powers to sack or insist on the resignation of the PCC.

This particular meeting was called to try and look at ways forward for the Panel and whether public engagement was a part of this? The meeting was webcast, so I will not be going into great detail and will largely let the broadcast speak for itself. The public involvement in the meeting starts after the report from Debbie Pons and includes questions from colleagues in Neighboutrhood Watch and myself representing Sheffield for Democracy. Be aware that the video is silent for the first few minutes, the engineer can be seen trying to fix this but it kicks in before the PCC's introduction.

---

This is a video file direct from the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council website.
If there are any problems viewing this file please go to this page and check out the player there - http://www.rotherham.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/154494

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.

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

Click here for YouTube version

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

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