An Odd Week in Politics.

It's been an odd week. Organising and preparing has been the core of what I've been up to and of course the ever present distraction of social media mayhem amongst public & politicians.

---

As many will know I have launched a fundraising drive to try and secure some income to enable me to continue the work I undertake to push transparency and further accountability in local corridors of power. There is much needs to be done and, although I have had some truly generous subscriptions started and some one off donations I was not expecting, it is not enough to keep the wolf from the door yet. So, please continue to like and share my donations page, set up a subscription if you can afford to and I'll keep you updated on progress.

In the interests of my own transparency I will be setting up a page to thank my supporters but, recognising not everyone will want their name made public in this context, let me know if you prefer privacy. On that page I will also show the current total tally for the subscriptions and donations I receive.

---

In other news, look out for details of an upcoming course for the Workers Education Alliance, about the issues leading up to the expected Mayoral Election in May and looking at how and why devolution has become such a complex issue. I'll be delivering the course with Vicky Seddon, co-ordinator of Sheffield for Democracy and I will post details as they are available.

This will coincide with the process of the Labour Party choosing their candidate for the election and, no doubt, other parties declaring their positions on the Mayoral Election. It is a timely reminder as we are consistently seeing the electorate struggling with the concept of the Regional Mayor and confusing the role as one that has power over the City of Sheffield, which it does not.

The current list of potential candidates for the Labour Mayoral candidacy is in and, not wishing to be party political I will simply say they are unsurprisingly Male, Stale & Pale. All are career politicians and unlikely to rock the boat.

I'm also continuing to put together some plans for creating more active citizens and helping 3rd sector organisations be better at their public engagement and their engagement with our political and other institutions. This means more meetings this week with at least some of those groups that may benefit.

---

Looking forward, tomorrow brings the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting. You might imagine, that with so much comment in press and by numerous politicians about the issue of devolution in South Yorkshire and indeed the whole of Yorkshire, there would be an update planned for the agenda. There is not, it's all business.

This does not, unfortunately, surprise me the SCRCA have, at least in their formal meetings, been tight lipped and unforthcoming with information. There will undoubtedly be comment in the private meeting beforehand but nothing to ruffle the feathers will be included in the 'public' meeting. I will however be there to see what might be gleaned behind the scenes.

---

The fallout around PFI deals is continuing. There is no apparent news about the 250 Carillion jobs in Sheffield but Sheffield celebrated the new flood protection scheme in the Lower Don Valley, completed by Carillion before they went bust, without any mention of the contractor.

The Amey/Streets Ahead PFI continues to make news, between the first MP to visit the scene of a felling protest calling for a halt to the 'unsustainable' programme, to a curious story of allegedly poison tea. All set against continuing violence on the streets and a refusal of the Council's Cabinet to condemn that violence.

---

As I said, an odd week. Look out for a potentially short report on the SCRCA meeting later in the week and more detail on the WEA devolution course.

---

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting 17th January 2018

Cabinet Meetings are an opportunity to see the real power brokers in the city, the Council Cabinet making decisions. It is also an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of those same decision makers.

---

This particular meeting was a bit of a sparse affair, with three Cabinet Members and the City's Chief Executive missing. Cllr Julie Dore (Leader), Cllr Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families), Cllr Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene). There was no explanation for their absences, there rarely is.

That did mean that my questions 4 & 5 would not get an answer as they would normally be referred to Cllr Lodge. I did have a vague hope that Cllr Olivia Blake (Cabinet Member for Finance) who was chairing the meeting in her role as Deputy Leader may have some comment on the financial enquiries in question 5 but it was not to be.

Below are the questions I asked at this meeting and the responses I received, with some editorial comment from me along the way.

---

Question 1

Why did the city miss the opportunity to bid for money to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the women's suffrage movement?

We were one of 16 candidates invited to apply for a share of a £1.2M pot but chose not to apply, was any consideration given to this opportunity or any discussion had with heritage groups in the city to assist in a possible bid?

I supported this question with copies of correspondence between Louise Haigh MP (Sheffield Heeley) and the Government Equalities Office.

The question was answered by Cllr Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure). She commented that the Council had been unable to find any evidence of a letter inviting them to bid for the grant pot but they would continue to look. She agreed it was unfortunate that the opportunity was missed. Pointed out that there was a plaques to the Suffragette movement on Marlborough Road and a new one was to be placed this year on Chapel Walk. She also commented on all the things the city did to celebrate Sheffield women, including the recent 'Women of Steel' statue. There was also comment on the exhibition about protest in the Millennium Gallery organised by the Museums Trust. (anyone might think she had seen my Q7)

Finally she mentioned the smaller grants now available to community groups and encouraged any groups interested to bid for funds to celebrate the centenary

---

Question 2

Living just off London Road I have completed the survey into the possibility of selective licensing for the area. Has Council given any thought to a city wide licensing scheme for private landlords?

It would seem this would have the benefit of ensuring all landlords are working to the same minimum standards and would not impinge on the businesses of decent landlords. It would also have the benefit that costs of licenses could be reduced, making more landlords able to afford any needed improvements whilst not unfairly impacting on those who already meet eh minimum standards?

This was answered by Cllr Jayne Dunn (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety) who responded that the limits on selective licensing were set by central government at 20% of geography or of the city's private rental stock. Council therefore concentrated on identifying the most at risk areas of the city to tackle with these powers. (this might be a matter for the local renters campaign Acorn to take up at a national level as well as locally, though I may follow up to see whether any work arounds are available)

---

Question 3

When I first planned this question it was to ask whether the Council had made any contingencies for the potential collapse of Carrilion. Circumstances have overtaken that and now my question is what exposure does the city have in respect of this major outsourcing company collapsing?

What impact will this have on the Tram / Train project? The Lower Don Valley flood defence project? And the 250 jobs at the Carillion Call Centre in the City?

In addition is the Council aware of how many local companies may be impacted as part of the 30,000 small businesses owed money by the company?

This was answered first by Cllr Olivia Blake. She was able to clarify that all Carrilion contracts with the city were complete, including the flood defence work. She had no knowledge how the Call Centre might be affected but that they were keeping an eye out for any local businesses that may be impacted by the collapse.

Cllr Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability) answered the part about the Tram/Train project. He stated that the Council's part of this project was complete and the remaining Carillion contract was with Network Rail. Work appeared to be continuing and Network Rail and the Department for Transport were in negotiations over the impact of the collapse.

---

Questions 4 & 5

As I stated before these would have been referred to Cllr Bryan Lodge who was absent. I will therefore update on these if I ever get the promised written response.

---

Before moving on to the final two questions I would like to proffer an observation. It was at this point in the meeting that the Councillors present moved into professional politician mode. They appeared to shrug off their humanity in favour of party unity. No doubt they justify this as supporting the greater good but to me it appears cynical and dehumanising to the Councillors involved. The fact is they supported a rapacious multinational conglomerate over the people of the city who, particularly as Cabinet Members, they are charged with representing.

---

Question 6

It was disturbing to see a Cabinet member sharing a propaganda video from AMEY PLC entitled “The Protestors Have No Respect For Democracy”.

This from a company that denies public oversight of the contract they are being paid £2.2Bn to implement over 25 years, though apparently we'll now be paying the bill for 45 years, and who have consistently flouted industry good practice and H&S protocols in doing so. This professionally produced and extremely selective view of the trees issue, apparently made with the connivance of the Council, makes unsubstantiated allegations about the conduct of protestors, neither of which incidents resulted in arrests and appear to use SCC evidence footage. There is also a claim that masked people in headlamps are out on the streets causing concern. Are we sure these aren't AMEY subcontractors stalking the streets for unprotected trees at 4am?

Can Council confirm whether footage taken by Council under the Council's internal evidence protocol were used in this video?

If so, who authorised that use?

This was answered by Cllr Jack Scott, being the Cabinet Member that shared the video on Twitter. His response fell into three repetitions. It is not propaganda just another point of view, it is entirely truthful, it has been quite rightly been shared by lots of Councillors. (well the video, as it's original upload on YouTube shows, has been seen just over 700 times, liked once & disliked 31 times. I cannot find anyone else from Council having shared it, certainly not his Cabinet colleagues, his own tweet has been shared only 5 times and liked only twice. There are 50 comments on the tweet, mostly from STAG members taking Cllr Scott to task. Interestingly, the title of the video has now been changed to 'A Residents' View')

Cllr Olivia Blake answered the last point, stating that no SCC evidence material had been used in the video. (Interestingly Council's head of Highways, Paul Billington was in attendance for the Public Questions leaving immediately afterwards. Wonder if he was there to ensure Councillors stuck to the script?)

---

Question 7

Recent events and the fact that this week included Martin Luther King Day, reminded me of a quote from that great advocate of peaceful protest; “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” MLK I Have a Dream, 1963 The silence from this Council over the violence and unlawful behaviour of security staff employed by it's Streets Ahead contractor is shameful and for women Councillors to remain silent in the face of violence to women is unbelievably so.

I have always tried to work for positive outcomes for this city and have been grateful for the Council's support on various issues, even though we may disagree how to achieve the best results. I have included photos to show the casual abuse of which I speak and ask that you speak out. Any comment?

This was answered by Cllr Olivia Blake who delivered what was clearly a pre-prepared legal statement about reporting incidents of violence to the Police and so on and so forth. (No comment or apparent understanding of why this sort of response is both distasteful or morally dubious. This despite having photographic evidence of the casual abuse being inflicted on peaceful protestors, including women, every day the contractor is on the streets.)

---

So, a curate's egg of a Public Questions session. Good in parts with some clear answers. In other parts it was rotten to the core as Councillors ditched their humanity to present a united front. There is something broken about this approach and whilst the good needs support the bad needs challenge.

---

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.

18th September 2013. Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting. by Nigel Slack.

The meeting started at 2pm and during the Housekeeping item on the agenda, the meeting was told by Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, that the proceedings could now be recorded by members of the public. This is the first Cabinet Meeting since these rules came into force but after asking the public gallery, all three of us, there were no requests to record this time around.

This emphasises for me the need for formal recording and webcasting by the Council of all relevant decision making meetings. Partly because people actually involved in the meetings do not necessarily have the time to do their own recording but also because they may not have the facility or confidence to do so.

As for this report of the meeting, it is my intention, with all these reports, to highlight areas of interest to me personally or of particular importance in the wider context of local politics. I will always supply, as soon as they are available, links to the minutes of the meeting from the City website.

After agreeing previous minutes, though there was some confusion over a couple of amendments that needed to be made, the meeting moved on to the item ‘Public Questions and Petitions’. There were no petitions at this meeting and so it was straight to questions.

There were three questioners, myself included.

The first questioner, who’s name I missed, expressed many concerns about the way the Streets Ahead project was being managed in the High Green area of the City. From accidents being caused by the works, to poor quality of work that would quickly deteriorate.
Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) responded by asking the questioner to give that information to Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) who would respond in writing.
Councillor Scott indicated he had received that information already and would respond but also had some comments for the meeting. Councillor Scott stated that he was aware that High Green was a problem, it was behind schedule and the disruption seemed particularly high. He also said he believed that the residents would see it as worthwhile once the work was complete.

Question two was mine. I commented that I had a number of outstanding requests for information with the Council, ranging from 10 days to 10 months and asked when do such delays become too long?
I was also able to say that the 10 day item had been answered that very day when Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion) had passed me the information before the start of the meeting.

Councillor Dore asked for clarification on what items I meant and I was able to comment that the major items were already known to Councillors Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) and Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living).

Councillor Lodge then repeated his continuing excuse that budget constraints meant that my request was not a priority and that when the information was available it would be published on the Council’s website. This response is feeling trite and insulting at this point when other Cabinet members are not, apparently, having the same problem.

Councillor Lea commented that there had been some confusion about the sending out of the information she was providing but that it was ready and I would have it by the end of the day. (An e-mail was waiting for me on my return home)

There was no actual answer to the question of when such delays become too long.

The final question came from Martin Brighton, a regular at these meetings. He asked a number of questions about integrity, innocence until proven guilty and sanctions against Councillors who fail to keep promises. What peaked my particular interest was a question about whether the leader was aware of members of Council stalking him?

Councillor Dore said she was not aware of such and if she believed she was being stalked she would call the police. I do hope there is a further instalment in this story in the near future.

The meeting then moved on to other business which is recorded in the minutes of the meeting and I left.

Next meeting 16th October 2013.

Download Minutes of the Meeting