Cabinet Meeting 18th July 2018 - Public Q&A's

Sheffield City Council's Cabinet Meeting of the 18th July was somewhat more informative than many recent meetings and, as a result, I felt the responses to my questions are worth noting.

So here are the questions I asked and a condensed version of the answers I received.

---

Questions to Cabinet 18th July 2018

Q1 I've heard from a number of sources within Council that a procurement process has begun for the Webcasting of Council meetings and that a tender invitation will be sent out shortly. Is this the case?
If so, what are the details of the specification in the tender for a webcasting service?
Which meetings? Guarantees of independence from political interference? Indexing of agenda items and identification of participants? Archiving arrangements? Etc.

A1 Response from Cllr Olivia Blake (Cabinet Member for Finance) Commented that recent tests for recording meetings had shown the audio system was at the end of it's useful life. It has previously been agreed that any such service should be affordable within current budgets. Tenders were sent out asking for options to do this. Tenders have been received and are going through assessment process.

My Comment
This is generally good news, probably. I have been pressing for webcasting of Council meetings for six years or more and, despite a commitment from the Leader of Council, Julie Dore over two years ago it has been painfully slow progress. It is a shame the outline specs for the tender documents were not discussed more transparently, perhaps with those of us pressing for the service, hopefully the options that arise will be shared before decisions are made.

---

Q2 The changes to the public realm on Charter Row, at the back of the Debenhams store and the side of the new HSBC building, offered an opportunity to much improve that relatively sterile part of the city centre. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, the seating on the Debenhams side of the street faces the back wall of Debenhams rather than across the open space towards the new green spaces being created at the side of the HSBC building.
Why is this? Was this always the plan or a mistake?
Passing recently it is clear that most of the new planting in that area is dying due to lack of watering. Who is responsible for this space and the maintenance of the planting?

A2 Response from Cllr Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Business and Investment) He agreed the design might appear a bit odd at this stage but that further development in that area would make the layout make more sense. (I am promised an overview of the future look of the area at my next meeting with Cllr Iqbal). On concerns over the planting, the contractors have responded and will now be watering the planting once a week during this arid spell of weather.

---

Q3 In the last year or so I have heard the phrase Due Diligence on several occasions. It has been used in regard to many decisions made by Council, from the potential selling of the Central Library, the disposal of Mount Pleasant (where it was used a great deal) to the recently collapsed 'ofo' deal.
What has never been made clear is what Due Diligence actually means.
Can Council explain what the phrase means?
What steps are included in assessing due diligence?
What information is accessed and assessed?
Where is the information sourced?
Who/which department assesses the information?
What technical or other qualifications are expected of people in this decision making position?

Response by Cllr Julie Dore (Leader of the Council) Commenting that I was probably well aware what the term meant, she however explained that it is a generic term and about ensuring checks and balances are maintained for contracts etc. Such checks will always include financial and legal checks but can also include broader issues about ability to deliver on the contract or service. Normally the checks were carried out by qualified Council staff but they will use outside experts as necessary. Cllr Dore then asked if I had any particular decisions in mind?

I responded no but generally I felt it would be useful (& improve transparency) if reports to Cabinet etc. included information about the types of checks carried out not just the words 'due diligence'

She agreed to take that on board (I may need to follow that up with the Council's Chief Exec, John Mothersole)

---

Q4 Over the last couple of years the proposed fate of the Central Library has changed more than once. Sale to an outside investor, new building in the Heart of the City and now a revamp of the current location. What is the current situation with respect to the Central library and building?

A4 Response from Cllr Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure) Commenting that the Council were committed to the Central library building and to the Graves Art Gallery, she said there were to be a series of public events in the near future to look at what a new central library service might look like and where it might be situated. This might include the current location or a new building still within the city centre.

---

Generally a series of positive responses with actual outcomes on the horizon. Webcasting to become a reality? Improved openness about plans for the redevelopment around Charter Square. potential for more information in decision documents about what 'Due Diligence' means & public consultation (before the fact) on the future of the Central library sevrice.

It's good to get confirmation that what I do as an Active Citizen works.

---

To support my work click on the button below.

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.

---

A Week of Revelations? - an Active Citizen's View

I've just had something of a week for revelations, though of a prosaic nature rather than evangelical.

---

Monday the 17th October started the week in an unexpected manner. A visit to the SheffEx Conference at the Royal Victoria Hotel, the first, if Tony Carrol's hopes are met, of a forthcoming series of such events. The invite came through late last week but the running order had two interesting items for me. An update on the proposals for the Sheffield Retail Quarter (SRQ) and one on the inward investment from China.

Before that however were some other speakers. First up was Yuri Matischen, MD and part owner of Sheffield Sharks basketball team. This provided my first revelation, sports, leisure & tourism contribute £2.2Bn to Sheffield City Region economy and employ 44,000 people. That's something not talked about enough and they hope to put together a strategy to grow that with events that we can 'own' locally and that cannot be lost to competition from other cities or regions.

Next came Professor Vanessa Toulmin, head of Sheffield University's Public Engagement team. Less revelatory to some of us but still worth a comment, Sheffield's international reputation stands on four things; the 'Made in Sheffield' brand (much counterfeited in the past), Music, Beers & Arts. These also contribute to the idea of Sheffield as a 'Magnet City'. Developing and promoting these reputations and products should therefore increase the economy and inward investment.

---

Then we had David Slater, who made his fortune off building (what an emeritus professor of Urban Policy & Planning called) student warehousing in the St Vincent's district. He is now keen to see redevelopment of the Don Valley & Attercliffe, whilst changing it's designation to Sheffield East to avoid bad associations with sex industry and decay. This idea has since surfaced again in the Sheffield Star. I'm not sure that thousands of new family homes in one of the worst polluted districts in the city is an ideal solution to our housing problem but David Slater clearly sees money in it.

Later in the event, Chris Dymond of Sheffield Digital provided another revelation. Although I knew we had a thriving games & digital economy in the city he revealed that there were more than 14,000 jobs in this sector, providing 18% of the city's jobs, with high average salaries. On the down side however he also commented that each digital job was worth 5 traditional jobs to the economy and that in the next 20 years automation would take over some 20% of current jobs. This is something many of the Political Parties are failing to address in either their economic or education policies.

---

Bracketing Sheffield Digital were two contributions from Simon Green, Executive Director of the 'Place' portfolio, responsible for seven of the Councils directorates for business strategy, growth and regeneration. He addressed two issues, the Sheffield Retail Quarter (SRQ) and secondly the newly agreed Chinese inward investment to the city.

On the SRQ the big reveal was that Council, as the owners of the land and a now active development partner has listened, not only to it's own advisors but to the mood of the public (as expressed very well by the likes of Rupert Wood and the Alternative SRQ group, Nick Roscoe of Hallamshire Historic Buildings and others) by adapting the plans originally put forward, away from a single major shopping mall type project, to what is now termed a “retail led, mixed use scheme”.

It also appears that they will be respecting traditional street patterns and despite delays still maintain a healthy relationship with the key Major retailer in the City Centre, John Lewis. Changing shopping patterns have been a big reason for this change of mind, recognising the impact of internet shopping and the revelation (to them at least) that local independent shops are a major draw for increasing the spend in a city. Sheffield looking to be the first of the new, not the last of the old retail schemes.

---

Simon then talked about the inward investment expected from China. There was less to say here as the deal is very new but is basically contextualised by the changing face of inward investment from 'traditional' sources in USA and EU to newer Asiatic economies and investors. It may also be a way of private Chinese capital ameliorating their exposure to the weaknesses and risks of the Chinese economy. The initial information is that there will be £220M to be invested in 5 physical projects within the City & Region, both public and private. The first may well be announced within a matter of months. He highlighted that issues around the complexity of the British planning processes and finding projects that can be delivered in a timely manner are outstanding.

---

Further revelations were to appear later in the week, at the Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting on Wednesday. Regular readers will know that I am not averse to asking the occasional question at these meetings. Generally these questions are aimed at improving transparency in the way decisions are made or, sometimes, as a means of improving the lot for the City and Citizen.

Although I asked five questions at the meeting, only one would qualify as generating any revelation but a second revelation came after the meeting.

---

My first question was the revelatory moment: “It appears from a SY Police budget report that the force is utilising covert technology to capture data from the public's mobile phones without their consent.

"South Yorkshire Police report. A 2015/16 budget item called “IMSI Covert Communications” was earmarked £144,000. A separate line in the same budget – again called “CCDC” (covert communications data capture) – was allocated an identical amount: £144,000. South Yorkshire police confirmed that ‘CCDC’ and ‘IMSI Covert Communications’ are the same budget item." Quotation from Bristol Cable report.

Were Council aware of this system and it's use? Were the Council's representatives on the Police & Crime Panel aware of this system and it's use?”

The question was answered by Cllr Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families) one of four Sheffield Councillors on the Police & Crime Panel. She admitted to not being aware of this matter, having recently being appointed to the PCP. She has promised to look into it and let me know. I find it quite disturbing that this technology can be implemented without, apparently, any knowledge within the City Council.

It illustrates, once again, the problems encountered by regularly changing committee members, caused mostly by the City's continued use of elections by thirds. Rather than all out elections. The latter would allow committee members to serve for four straight years gaining greater experience, rather than chopping and changing every year, leading to poor levels of quality scrutiny from our elected members.

The second revelation came after the meeting in a conversation with a Cabinet member who revealed the Council have decided to propose banning 'Fracking' on all Council owned land. This is not a total solution but, with the Council owning large tracts of land in the City (All parks, estates etc) this will go some way to hampering the companies that might wish to exploit this filthy and dangerous source of carbon based fuel.

---

A week of contrasts, good news and yet some concerning revelations. It is weeks like this that make me continue trying to make Sheffield decision making more transparent and simply better.

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?

The Sheffield TTIP Roadshow, Compare & Contrast, by Nigel Slack.

---

The organisers - Vs - The participant.

---

It has taken me a little while to get hands on the organiser's view of this event (from 1st October) but, having done so, I've been able to compare that to a report I received from a participant shortly after the event. The contrasts are interesting and I hope illuminating. Both mention the problems now at the forefront of public and political campaigns against this TTIP deal but the organisers inevitably spin the positive.

For background, British American Business is a hugely influential and hugely well funded lobbying group. They suggest they are like an international Chamber of Commerce but one look at their website shows the reach they have and the influence they believe they can exert. They fund the influential 'All party parliamentary group on EU-US trade & investment' and the keynote speaker, John Healey MP (Labour), is the chair of this group.

I will make the comparison by quoting from the BAB report and then highlight using italics any discrepancies from the 'participants' comments. My own additional comments are in [square brackets]. The first discrepancy is actually nothing to do with the meeting as such but the preamble to the BAB report. This states;

“On October 1, 2014 BritishAmerican Business and the Sheffield City Region invited businesses and stakeholders from government and local business and trade organisations to participate in a TTIP Roadshow event in Sheffield. Nabarro LLP kindly hosted the event.”

According to my notes from the Full Council Meeting of the same day (1st October) Cllr Dore commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence, as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

---

However to continue to matters within the event itself.

After introductions came a keynote address by John Healey MP. His key points were;
“First, this is the best prepared bilateral trade deal in history. Prior to the launch of negotiations, governments on both sides of the Atlantic had been assessing the potential and the feasibility of an agreement concluding with the recommendation to launch negotiations for a comprehensive trade and investment agreement. Second, in light of growing competition from other economic regions in the world, TTIP is the opportunity to set a common set of high standards that may function as a template worldwide. Third, this agreement could be beneficial to consumers, workers and businesses in the UK.”

He also suggested;
“If the UK wants to keep its economy successful, it will need this deal.”

On the concerns of the public he said;
“That political leaders and negotiators on both sides have pledged that a trade agreement between the EU and the US will not lower standards and that the National Health Services (NHS) will be protected. However, he also stated that he saw no case for an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system in an EU/US agreement and that this issue should not be a stumbling block for the entire deal.”

Missing comments;
Any deal must be democratically approved by leaders and government (JH thinks it should go to parliament itself).
[Suggests BAB don't like his comments on ISDS or need for democratic debate]

---

First speaker from the panel was Mark Robson of UK trade and investment. (Gov dept that promotes exports and foreign investment in UK) His comments were;
“pointed out how important the economic and Investment-relationship already is for the Sheffield region and the UK as a whole. Many businesses of all sizes and sectors in the Sheffield region already export to the US, but market access for companies is still limited in various sectors. TTIP can help to remove those limitations to increase the trade and investment relationship.”

Missing comments;
NHS – turn argument on its head, our health companies can be looking to sell services to US; UK provides springboard for US companies to reach Europe so they like to invest here; US market is not easy for UK companies despite common language. [missing comments infer the imbalance of power in transatlantic economic relationships]

---

Next was Richard Currie of UPS (US parcels & logistics company) he commented;
“TTIP represents an opportunity to remove existing “bottlenecks” in the transatlantic supply chain, and facilitate trade for businesses and consumers. For example, if TTIP results in an increase of the ‘de minimis’ threshold (the value of goods below which customs duties are not applied) to $800, lower value goods could be transported at a lower cost and with less administrative effort. Furthermore, studies have shown that the removal of tariffs, could boost transatlantic trade by $120 billion over a 5-year period. Richard emphasised that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers should be the main beneficiaries of a comprehensive agreement.”

Missing comments; Regulatory compliance or acceptance of each others’ standards (NOT “harmonisation” – Jeffries also rejected that description) – would be especially helpful for pharmaceuticals and locomotives.
[Centred on good for UPS, still suggests ability for US food and agriculture, including GMOs, to be allowed into EU]

---

Then came William Beckett, CEO of Beckett Plastics, who commented;
“offered an insight into the current challenges small companies face when trading with the US, in particular in regards to cultural and legal differences between the EU and the US. William welcomed the negotiations for a comprehensive trade deal. However, he emphasized the need for government to closely work with trade and business organisations to fully understand the needs of local business.”

Missing comments;
Chairs trade forum of 80 companies in Yorkshire & Humberside, member of 3 US trade organisations with 1000s of members – never heard of TTIP and not excited about it. What would help their exports is to fix the exchange rate (trade tariffs are small problem by comparison). Biggest barriers are cultural, different legal system especially around intellectual property and litigation (don’t automatically get costs). SMEs don’t export to US because they are frightened and apathetic.
[Apparent direct contradiction. Suggests BAB need to bury lack of interest and the uncertainty in UK businesses]

---

Next up was David Henig, Director for TTIP at the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, and the chap that commented to a protester outside the event “it is not the job of Government to protect the public from corporations,” He is reported as commenting;
“Most important element of an agreement will be the removal of existing non-tariff barriers in sectors like chemicals or automotive. But also the removal of existing tariffs will be significant. TTIP will also allow for UK companies to access market segments that are currently protected from outside-US competition. A comprehensive trade agreement will help to keep the EU-US market an attractive destination for business and investment in a more competitive world. It is hoped that the negotiations for TTIP are concluded in 2015 and could be in force by 2017 or 2018. David emphasised that government has been working hard to make the negotiations as transparent as possible and to provide a platform for exchange and input.”

Missing comments;
Multiple examples of how things will be freed up – size of shower trays, insurance, dairy products, chemicals, automobiles, customer checks and paper work, lowering trade tariffs so this trade deal will set a high standard economy and set a bench mark when “facing up to China”. The point of ISDS is that it enshrines that we won’t discriminate against foreign investors, who are keen to see that happen.
[Concerned that re; ISDS a civil servant supports corporations over UK citizens]

---

Finally came PJ Menner from the US Embassy who commented;
“That for US government, the trade agreement is considered to be an important vehicle for more jobs and growth in two economies that have suffered during the financial crisis in 2008. There is a strong political will and commitment in Washington to accomplish a comprehensive agreement ....Especially for the UK, having a comprehensive trade agreement will mean to bring the economic relationship in line with its political and cultural relationship.”

Missing comments; US is committed, Obama sees it as his legacy project.
[Indicates US sees greater benefit for them over UK]

---

That was the end of the panel presentations and the floor was open to a question and answer session. BAB reported this as;
“During the Q&A, participants used the opportunity to discuss the balance between the benefits of trade and the need to protect citizens. Participants were assured that government will guard the ability to regulate and that there is a common interest on both sides of the Atlantic to keep standards high. Another question addressed potential consequences of a UK outside of the European Union. Participants agreed that it would be challenging for a UK outside of Europe to negotiate an agreement that would offer similar benefits than TTIP. Participants were also informed that a separate chapter for SMEs is currently being discussed as part of the agreement.”

It's impossible to go into the full detail of the Q&A here but my personal reading of the session suggests that the concerns over the NHS, ISDS and the particular concerns of SME's (Small, Medium Enterprises) about predatory corporations were not assuaged by this roadshow. Indeed it seemed they were not listening to the SME concerns and telling them they were wrong. In addition, although NHS got a mention other public services are apparently fair game. Overall the participants seemed not to be reassured by the event and still see TTIP as more of a threat than a boon.

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

11th September 2013. Sheffield Executive Board Meeting. By Nigel Slack.

Today I went to my first ever meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board.  This impressive sounding organisation was set up “…to provide leadership within the city on issues of city-wide significance, and to advocate for Sheffield collectively to Government, the European Union and other national and international forums”.

The Board consists of “..leaders from across the private, public, voluntary, community and faith sectors in Sheffield”.  This, at least, is according to their own website.

http://www.sheffieldfirst.com/the-partnership/sheffield-executive-board.html

The aim of the body is, essentially, to act first as a think tank for new ideas, policies and strategies for the city.  To then develop these potential policies into something workable, that can be supported by all the ‘partner’ organisations and finally to promote the finished product to the city as a whole and to the wider world.

Members include representatives from the City Council, Both Universities and Sheffield College, the NHS, Fire Service, Police, the Voluntary Sector, Sheffield Cathedral and Private Enterprise bodies.  Personally, I am concerned that the so called ‘faith sector’ is represented only in it’s Christian mainstream form.  No Islamic representatives, no Jewish representatives and none from the smaller Christian faiths.

This was my first visit to this meeting because, although their meetings are open to the public, they are not well promoted unless you visit the website.  Add to that the fact that the meeting had a last minute change of venue so that Leslie and I did not arrive until twenty minutes or so into the meeting.  We were, apparently the first members of the public to ever make it to a meeting and therefore caused some uncertainty but were welcomed and seated at the back of the room.

The item we arrived in the middle of was a presentation by ‘The Young Foundation’ concerning resilience and wellbeing in communities.  The research methodology looked interesting, although I didn’t catch it all, as it avoided using the Index of Multiple Deprivation statistics (IMD) in favour of drawing together evidence from a range of sources to create their picture of a community’s resilience and wellbeing. The illustrations given suggest an ability to drill down into communities and neighbourhoods better than the IMD data can.

http://www.youngfoundation.org/

The strategies for affecting a community’s resilience and wellbeing were based on the use of CBT (Conditional Behavioural Therapy) and Positive Psychology and they were delivered through community projects and volunteers.  This bothered me somewhat.  My experience of CBT is that it can work for some people some of the time for a short time.  Positive Psychology, on the other hand, whilst at the foreront of current practice, is facing a rising tide of challenges from academics and authors in the field. My concern therefore, is what happens to those for whom CBT does not work or who are not part of a community group?


Following the presentation there was some discussion in groups and then in general about the subject. Interestingly, during this, one of the NHS representatives present commented on the need for these types of strategies to have long term commitment to ensure the benefits that might accrue remained.  The result of the discussions was that the ideas were interesting and might be a way forward, helping communities become more resilient to the drastic changes being forged by the austerity measures being employed by the Government.


The second item in this ‘open’ session of the meeting was a discussion about the partnership working that would be happening with the redesign of the community assembly approach to local democracy.  This discussed the new structure somewhat and the fact emerged, from one of the newly appointed chairs of the Local Area Partnerships, as they ate currently called, that we would all have to get used to the fact that the Council is being forced to withdraw from offering many of the services they have traditionally fulfilled for citizens of the city.


This is both worrying and challenging, since many of the services from which they are withdrawing directly affect the most vulnerable in the city.  The question was left with the ‘partners’ to consider what they could offer in this new landscape to potentially fill the gap or redress the lack of services in these austerity years.


At the end of this discussion the guests that would not normally have been at the meeting left and we, as members of the public were also asked to leave.  The meeting was entering its ‘closed’ period where apparently they discuss items of ‘private business’. This, as you might imagine, does not sit well with me as someone who campaigns about transparency and openness in public business and decision-making.  I will therefore be making enquiries as to what sort of business this clearly influential organisation discusses behind closed doors.


Next meeting; Wednesday 9th October 2013, venue to be advised.

Sept 2013 - NOW THEN Magazine #66, "Webcasting. Transparent government in action?" by Nigel Slack

"Webcasting. Transparent government in action?" by Nigel Slack
In Sheffield's Now Then Magazine issue no.66 - September 2013


This article is aimed at generating a wider debate on the idea of Webcasting Council meetings. The webcasting of meetings would greatly improve the openness of Council decision making by allowing people who cannot make daytime weekday meetings to either, watch the events live on various technologies, or to view it after the event online. It looks at the pros and cons and considers why it is an important idea and how it can be done in these times of budgetary constraint for Councils.

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

To see the article follow this link or click on the magazine cover below
http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-66/webcasting/