Sheffield City Council – Cabinet Meeting - 20th May 2020

---

For the first time in it's 100+ years history the Leaders of the Council met remotely via internet services to enable at least some semblance of democracy to continue during these unprecedented times. This is my very concise report on the proceedings.

---

The Council's normal service is highly affected currently, both by the Pandemic and by Government changes to the way they are enabled to maintain services and make decisions during the crisis. This is impacting to some extent on the democratic process and is not what we would like to see happening but strange times can lead to unhappy circumstances and we must do what we can as organisations and individuals to maintain scrutiny of those in power and the decisions they make.

If the least we can do is to continue speaking truth to power then that is what we must do.

The meeting started a little after 2pm and, as is usual for what would normally be the first meeting after the Council's AGM it is essentially a short agenda. On this occasion, with the normal AGM having been cancelled all the faces of the Cabinet Councillors remained the same and in the same roles (this is unusual). The meeting was opened by Cllr Julie Dore, as leader, with some brief opening comments and effusive thanks to the people of the city for their forbearance through the 9 weeks of lock-down to date. She commented on the difficulties we have all faced adjusting to the restrictions and offered particular thanks to Council staff and Social Care staff for their dedication.

The agenda was still able to handle Public Questions, though it is now necessary to have the question in 2 days in advance if you want to be part of the meeting, On this occasion there were two questions;

Ibrar Hussein, for the Taxi Trades – asked about the plans for the Clean Air Zone in the current circumstances, the slow progress of putting licensing applications online and the slow response to petitions. This was answered by Cllr Bob Johnson and would be followed up with Mr Hussein direct.

Mike Hodson – Carter Knowle & Millhouses Community Group, asked about the engagement plans for the Director of Public Health and communities/groups in light of Public Health England guidelines and the fact of different 'r' rates (infections) within the country and region. This was answered by Julie Dore who is asking the DPH to respond to Mr Hodson.

---

The meat of the meeting was, not surprisingly, a report on the Covid 19 pandemic and the city's response and plans for the future.

This section of the meeting was introduced by the (Interim) Chief Exec, Charlie Adan and then heard from the Executive Managers responsible for the city's response. Key amongst these was Greg Fell as Director of Public Health. I won't give a blow by blow on his report, or the other Executive Managers there but highlight some of the key points that piqued my interest.

The DPH reported that, using reports to NHS111 of people using their infection algorithm, as well as normal figures of hospitalised cases, he was able to estimate that a truer figure of cases in Sheffield was 30,500. This is a useful extra level of information that continues to show how official figures are misleading. He also commented that, following Sheffield Hospitals testing programmes and a generally good response from the Sheffield public to the lock-down, Sheffield's ICU beds always maintained the capacity to deal with the cases that needed hospitalisation. Sadly 304 people to this date had died from the virus or complications associated with having the virus.

I did have some cause for concern over one or two of the comments;
How can we be certain that, as the DPH commented, those infected have developed any immunity or how long this may last? (inevitably I will be asking for evidence on this considering we test so little in this country)

I am also concerned that we continue to support following HMG guidelines when so much of what they have done to date has either been the wrong decisions or utterly confusing messages.(You can see further comment from me on these issues and more in this The Public Interest article )

---

An interesting point came up during the report on the logistical efforts the city has been making to tackle the pandemic, by John Mackilwraith (apologies if that's not correct, poor screen resolution makes the name difficult to make out) He reported that Sheffield quickly became the hub facilitating PPE deliveries for the whole of South Yorkshire, Public Services and Independent Sector. The city had supplied 85% of the Regions needs with the rest being drops from the HMG stock. As a result of some very hard work the Sheffield service had managed to maintain some 5 days supply at facilities across the South Yorkshire area and is also holding approximately 4 weeks stock for contingency.

A well organised public sector response in sharp contrast to the Central Government debacle on behalf of the NHS.

---

Lastly I want to highlight some of the financial impact that the Council have had to absorb to tackle this crisis. Eugene Walker, Executive Director for Finance, reported that the response to Covid 19 is currently estimated to cost the Council £77M and that £50M of that will be this year. Government is expected to provide grant support of £34M, leaving the city £16M short. This means that without further Government support and with the impact of current spending cuts to take into account the city will have to draw on it's reserves to fill this gap. Even then the city's reserves will be exhausted in 2022.

---

After the reports from Officers it was time for the Cabinet Councillors to make comments on the report. I comment briefly on these and first of all note that each of the Cabinet Councillors mentioned staff and workers and colleagues to thank everybody for their efforts during the crisis.

Abtisam Mohamed- Cabinet Member for Education and Skills Praised the efforts on ensuring that children on free school meals were provided with 4,000 food hampers over the Easter break and highlighting the lack of Government funding to allow for similar provision during Half Term and the Summer holidays. Also thanked the medium & small Voluntary Sector organisations for their exceptional efforts.

George Lindars-Hammond- Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care Highlighted the excellent response on PPE within S. Yorkshire, being facilitated by SCC and succeeding where HMG failed.

Jackie Drayton- Cabinet Member for Children & Families Emphasised the great work done in Social Care with shielded people in sheltered accommodation and those adults with learning difficulties, who required a different approach

Paul Wood- Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety Highlighted the staff's fantastic job at responding to emergency situations in the midst of the crisis and often within a matter of hours.

Mazher Iqbal- Cabinet Member for Business and Investment Commented on those in the public & voluntary sector who were often working very long days and 7 days a week to address the crisis. Also commented on the difficulty of making the mixed and confusing messages from HMG into something that SCC could deliver. Rhetoric – v – reality.

Bob Johnson- Cabinet Member for Transport and Development Praised the willingness of staff to take on redeployed roles during the crisis. He is also keen to progress some of the active travel proposals he has been working on with City Region and pleaded with Officers to make an announcement by the weekend.

Mark Jones- Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change Accepts there have been some problems of people not doing what they should, down to confusing and misunderstanding of Government messaging. Pleased Sheffield maintained open recycling centres and also important to continue efforts on climate change and flood defences to avoid additional crisis issues this winter.

Mary Lea- Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure Expressed her upset at having to introduce such harsh measures with respect to bereavements and understands that even the announced relaxation is still difficult for people in grief. On a lighter note she was pleased that the investment in e-books had kept access to some library services available and that the city's parks had maintained an open status even if facilities were closed. They were clearly a lifeline for many.

Terry Fox- Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance Praised the speedy response of 'Mutual Aid' groups in the city and the work they were undertaking to keep communities functioning. Also commented on the flexibility of Council staff and their Unions in responding to the pandemic.

It will make an interesting backdrop to the 'Big City Conversation' around Neighbourhood Decision Making when that programme resumes.

Finally Julie Dore summed up by commenting that, at the time when she and the people of the city most needed to trust Government, we were unable to do so and how difficult this made every step. She also praised the work all Councillors of all parties for their efforts and contributions in the crisis.

---

Afterword

Inevitably the tone of the report and the Cabinet comments were of a positive nature, stressing the exceptional efforts of the workers and people of the city. There was no comment on the fights in Page Hall or the issues of Gang crime & shootings in Nether Edge.

I understand this, in a context of maintaining morale and compliance within the population, and hope that these issues are being dealt with by Cabinet members within their portfolios. It would be a serious mistake for us to take a fully 'Keep Calm & Carry On' approach when so much of what this Government has done so far has been detrimental to the Health & Wellbeing of the people of the country.

I will be engaging, I'm sure much to their delight, with members directly on some of the issues but recognise also that things may take a little longer than normal to get responses. I'm used to this however, still waiting on answers to questions for some three years.

We are by no means out of this crisis yet, we need to be prepared for further waves of infection, possibly worse than the first, and the way we work, shop, play and learn may well have changed forever. I hope and trust that key business leaders, including the relevant Cabinet members, are taking the need to review current plans for the City to heart and will include a broad range of stakeholders, including the public, in this ongoing effort

I encourage you to watch the archive of the meeting and to access the report papers both available here .

---

On a Lighter Note

The first remote Webcast of the Cabinet Meeting was also notable for the, shall we say, mixed impact of the visuals. There were a number of members who seemed to take the floating head approach to their appearance, others including officers, had some distortion to their features from proximity to their cameras and there were an interesting array of fake backgrounds on offer. All mildly amusing and not too distracting but if I had some advice it would be this;

Perhaps a harmonised background for the Officers – Be aware of your framing – Be aware of what you are doing with your hands etc. (at one point Bob Johnson looked as if he was giving a puppet show but lost his puppets).

However, all in all, a good start and at least retaining some level of scrutiny and public engagement. We shall see if other committees can match that.

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.

---

Sheffield City Region Devolution - The Brexit Impact

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

---

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

These are the questions I asked.

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

Town Hall -v- Whitehall, The Devolution Debate.

---

Bank Holiday Monday and I was invited in to the Sheffield Live studios to promote this Wednesday's Festival of Debate event. Devolution is one of the hot topics for the General Election and the Devolution Debate has been organised by Now Then Magazine and myself as an opportunity for people to learn more about what devolution might mean for our city. It will also give members of the public the chance to question some knowledgable panellists about the options and consequences we may be faced with after the election in May.
The interview was on the 'Communities Live' programme, broadcast at 12 noon and it starts at 8 minutes 45 seconds in.


(Audio link via Sheffield Live's programme 'Communities Live!' website -  http://www.sheffieldlive.org/podcasts/)

---

The full details of all the Festival of Debate events for April are here

FESTIVAL OF DEBATE

and there is still time to book your place for Wednesday's Devolution Debate. It takes place at the United Reformed Church on Norfolk Street, in the city centre, at 7.30pm and it's Free entry.

---

Two politicians, two community activists and two academics on the panel with a broad range of experience and opinion. I'll be hosting the event and trying to keep them all on topic and under control. I hope to see you there.

Devonshire Street demolition. How to stop it!

(image from Bruno Postle Flicker Page -https://www.flickr.com/photos/brunopostle/15491474361/in/photostream/)

The decision on the demolition of a row of shops considered by many as the jewel in the crown of the Devonshire Quarter's shopping experience and probably the oldest remaining shopping street in Sheffield will be made on Tuesday 24th March 2015, at the Planning Meeting, taking place in the Town Hall, Pinstone Street, S1 1HH at 2pm.

This may well be the last chance to prevent the demolition from going ahead, though with Planning Officers recommending demolition to the Planning Committee this may be a slim chance. I believe it is important that we make our case and try to force a rethink on the Officers and the Committee.

If you feel strongly enough about this and like me think this is unacceptable, get involved, here is what to do.

---

First, turn up to the Planning Meeting on Tuesday to voice your objection. You need to arrive fifteen minutes before the meeting starts, so at 1.45pm and register your wish to comment with the clerk of the meeting. Anyone affected by an application, whether as a neighbour or other Interested parties, may ask to put views personally.

Have your comments prepared. The more people that speak the longer the meeting will take and the potential that we can stop or change the decision that day. The Chair of the meeting will probably try to prevent too many people from contributing so we will have to be firm that we each have different points to make and we all deserve a chance to speak.

Make sure as much of your comment as possible concentrates on the planning issues rather than just personal preference for the shops that are currently there or concern over chain retailers taking over, they won't consider these comments as relevant. Make it personal however, commenting why you have problems with what they are doing, based on the planning issues.

---

Here are some comments that might be useful to you;

The Coal Authority report suggests a significant mining legacy risk. This could lead to redevelopment not being an option after demolition and this heritage being permanently lost.

The developer's own archaeological report states. “...overall, the proposed development will have a minor negative impact” and “A proposed sympathetic scheme that would retain the existing building, whilst also developing the land to the rear would be considered as providing a moderate/minor positive impact.”

The Planning Officer's report highlights “ Policy BE15 of the UDP...(says)...Development which would harm the character or appearance of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas or Areas of Special Character will not be permitted.” (The Grade II listed former Wharncliffe Fireclay Works would be affected.)

and “... policy BE18...expects the retention of buildings, walls, trees, open spaces and other features that contribute to the character of the Area,”

and “Policy BE20 of the UDP (Other Historic Buildings) states that the retention of historic buildings which are of local interest but not listed will be encouraged wherever practicable”

The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) advises. “advises that local planning authorities should set out ... a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment and, ... recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource which should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The Archaeological report also states. “Numbers 162-170 Devonshire Street have a strong social value, not only for those who continue to work within the buildings, but also within the wider local community. The social value of the application site has been demonstrated by public interest into the development proposal and formal comments registered to the application.”

and “The Appraisal concludes that the proposed development will result in the complete loss of the undesignated heritage asset of local importance...”

---

These are just a few comments I've picked out from all the reports as relevant to planning policy and therefore a good hook on which to hang your objections. There are others and all the reports can be seen on the Council website's Planning pages.

Start Here
http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/files/0E3B859EE4C653ADD25BA09F6635DB17/14_03473_FUL--872262.rtf

The full set of reports are here.
http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NC1WIKNYFY000

If you have the time add some thoughts of your own.

Around 19,500 people have objected to this proposal, in one form or another, if we can get just 1% to turn up at the planning meeting that would be huge. Please try to be there and please try to comment.

Unite Community Branch Meeting of 5th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

Tonight I was invited by the Unite Community Sheffield branch to talk about what I do and the Funding Campaign I'm running. (See my orange buttons on this blog) I was the last item on a busy agenda so I had the opportunity to see something of what Unite Community do.

---

The meeting started with an update on the campaign to boycott shops and companies in Sheffield that subscribe to the governments 'Workfare' (welfare to work) schemes. The latest was a protest outside a shop called Savers, on Haymarket. The day went well by the sound of it and with the connections they were making with the public and their reaction to the schemes was a great example of what direct action can achieve in raising awareness.

There were then updates on the Orgreave truth & justice campaign and the Freedom Rides protests. Tony & George, the two pensioners arrested at one of the events are up before the Sheffield Magistrates Court on the 8th December and the group are hoping for significant public support for the two men. Next were brief reports on a number of ongoing matters, the GMB unions strike at Sheffield Recycling Centres against the Veolia sub-contractor 'Green Company', The EDL march (again) in Rotherham and the anti-fascist response, The rep from Unite Community that went to the National Climate Change Meeting and from the Sheffield Trades Council and the Sheffield People's Assembly.

Finally there were two motions passed by the meeting. One supporting a woman's right to choose following the advent of an American pro life group starting to establish in this country and one to support the victim of convicted rapist Ched Evans, who is being hounded and abused by his supporters and some of the fans of Sheffield United.

---

Last of all I had the oportunity to outline my work with my 'Public Interest' profile and my attempts to bring greater transparency and accountability to Sheffield City Council and others in our region. I answered question after that including;
Isn't that why we pay Councillors? - Yes but they have less freedom than me to ask questions at meetings such as full council and cabinet where they cannot & Councillor performance is not consistent.
Why don't I stand for election? - It's expensive to do as an independent and as above would reduce my freedom to act. Were I to join a party that would reduce my independence as all party politicians are expected to submit to the party line.

I left them with some written material about what I do and hopefully they will distribute this through their own networks. All in all an interesting meeting with a group that could achieve a great deal given the support they need, much like me I guess.

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

sheffield city council, budget conversation of 21st october 2014, by nigel slack.

---

A quick headcount at the start of the meeting suggested some 100 or so people there and the mix was fairly even in genders but largely older adults with a scatter of younger ones. Better than the usual collection of older types that inhabit these events (Me included).

A brief opening statement by John Mothersole (Chief Executive) was followed by some context for the presentation by Cllr Ben Curran (Cabinet Member Finance & Resources).

As part of that context he reminded us that the figures discussed were not definitive but subject to change depending on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, which would indicate the extent of Government plans to further cut public spending, and the announcement in late December of the Local Government Settlement, which would give exact figures for the cuts to each council's grant from government.

The headline figure however forecasts a need to reduce council spending by £60M in 2015/16. It was noted at this stage that this is in the year when the Chancellor, George Osborne, had predicted that austerity would be over. The slides for the presentation are here, and are relatively self explanatory.

SCC budget Presentation Slideshow

---

The rest of my comments will be to highlight points brought out in the presentation not on the slides and to report something of the question and answer session. The first few slides were there to illustrate the level of the cuts to local government budgets, the highest percentage cuts apart from the welfare budget, and that there is significant opinion and evidence that the cuts are not being applied either evenly across all councils or taking into account different levels of need.

The latter slides in Cllr Curran's part of the presentation attempt to illustrate the scale of the cuts already made, 2015/16 will mean £300M lost from council spend since 2010, and the administration's belief that they have been able to maintain their principles and their ambition for the city. This included the plans for 5,000 new homes built over the next three years, thousands of apprenticeships to try and tackle our youth unemployment levels and introducing the living wage to all council employees and 80% of contract company employees. (a subject I chased with both councillors and officers from an early stage)

---

The presentation then moved to John Mothersole for the more detailed facts and figures and the approach the council were considering.

The initial slides in this part illustrated the relatively small amount of the budget that the council has discretion over. From a total £1.4Bn budget most is spent on services fixed by either government, education or housing needs. This leaves only £477M of discretionary spend. So with the 2015/16 cuts the contribution to the city from government grants will have fallen by 50% and that discretionary budget by 30%.

---

All this is being done in the face of a growing population in the city and a weak economic outlook for both the city, the country and the world. The growing population and cost pressures such as inflation also mean there is less service can be delivered with the same amount of money from this budget.

The presentation then went on to discuss the approach the council are looking to take and some of the things already done to achieve savings in the past. It also illustrated some changes that may have a positive impact on the city's budget, such as the New Homes Bonus and Community Infrastructure Charge on developers which could raise over £11M in the medium term, so not all for 2015/16. An even greater impact would be for central government to release more of the business rates they keep, £129M back to the city, without this it remains difficult for the council to reduce business rates (for start up small businesses etc.) without further impact on budgets.

One slide shows the confused position on money available and what is available to cut. Total public spending in Sheffield is £4.5Bn, the council's share of that in direct services is £800M much of the rest is spent via the council but on things like schools, health, transport and emergency services. Ringfenced money. Of the £800M some of that is also ringfenced for fixed budgets and so the money where the council can find cuts is only £477M. The council is therefore aiming to try and get more control over the total £800M and be able to use it more imaginatively and effectively as a result. Whether government will let go of these strings is questionable, whatever colour is in power.

---

The final slides were about how we, the public, can get involved. I think this is important, because without some offer of alternative ideas we will be stuck with whatever the councillors decide. The council think this is important because they can then say we were asked even when we don't like their answers.

The event then moved into a question and answer phase. The questions were mostly about clarification off certain budget areas and things like the difference between capital and revenue. The short answer to that is capital money is for one off projects (usually buildings etc) and revenue is for day to day running expenses. Like buying a car, that is capital. Petrol, insurance, car tax, that's revenue.

One person asked about the way the government fixed the amount of the money they distribute to councils. The answer essentially was that it is now based on population in the main and the need or deprivation of a council area is less and less important in the calculation. This is illustrated by the way city councils are proportionally worse hit by cuts than leafy rural southern counties, some of whom have seen increased levels of government grant.

I asked whether the new Sheffield City Region Combined Authority would be able to look at shared services between authorities to benefit from economies of scale and service efficiencies over bigger areas. The response was that this was possible in the medium to long term but unlikely to be in time to affect 2015/16 budget. I also asked whether there was any sign that the government might move it's position on the business rates retention. The response to this was a flat no.

---

The meeting wrapped at 7.30pm but there will be much more to come on this. I urge everyone to look at the information on the slides, think about the services they receive or contribute to and what could be done differently. We can't get away from this and even a change in government looks unlikely to change the impact for 2015/16, much as we might hope they would come to their senses and realise that austerity and spending cuts are making matters worse not better. Lobby your councillors, lobby your MPs, make your voice heard in the community and in the corridors of power.

Finally, the council's twee video presentation is below. It views a bit like a budget for toy town but I guess it helps get the basics out there and hopefully makes people think.

SCC Budget Video Presentation.

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

6th October 2014. Paul Blomfield MP, The Big Conversation, by Nigel Slack

Each year, to his credit, my local MP for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield, holds a aeries of events throughout his constituency talking with a broad range of organisations and the public. These events cover a range of subjects and are used by him and his team to inform his work for the coming year on behalf of his part of Sheffield.

This year I attended the event at the Sharrow Community Forum offices just round the corner from where I live. There were about eighteen of us in the audience and before we got down to business we were plied with tea and biscuits by Paul's team. Starting the conversation, Paul commented on what the event was about and gave us some examples of the way he'd used previous 'conversations' to bring up in Parliament and begin campaigns about. The two most prominent being zero hour contracts and the problems associated with pay day loans.

I was fortunate enough to get the first question and asked Paul about his views on TTIP. (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) I cited concerns over the regulatory harmonisation agenda which would risk EU rules on food (GMO's in particular) and US regulations on banking which are stronger than ours. Strong concerns over ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) a system that is being used by corporations to prevent changes to laws that might adversely affect their 'potential future' profits. Then the little known Mode 4 Cross Border Trade section, that would allow corporations to employ foreign staff, in this country, irrespective of immigration laws, and on lower terms and conditions than theri UK or EU counterparts.

In response, Paul commented that the biggest problem highlighted in other conversations about TTIP was with respect to the NHS being vulnerable to privatisation and the ISDS section. His opinion came down to the fact that the NHS and other public services should be exempt from the treaty and the ISDS proposals should either be radically different to ensure it does not limit Governments ability to legislate. He also inferred that this was Labour Party policy as well. I expressed concern over the potential for the treaty to be in place before the next election therby negating any election promises, but he said it was inconceivable, with the level of opposition in EU and USA that it would be complete before the 2015 election. On Mode 4, however, he made no comment. He did also offer to continue the discussion with me at another time.

There were a range of questions from other members of the audience ranging from IS and the Labour support for bombing, Local Devolution and not wanting an English Parliament, the need to challenge the move of money within the economy from wages to profits and from profits to dividends, and whether the people are willing to pay more for the NHS in taxes.

We concluded after an hour with Paul promising to circulate the results of all his big conversation events and thanking us all for our time and contributions. As the meeting broke up I was approached by a number of people wanting more information about TTIP, expressing their concern that so little was in the public domain about this treaty. I chatted over the basics with them for a while but then suggested they follow up their enquiries at the 'Stop TTIP' website. (details below)

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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