Minutes of Council Meeting held 2nd November 2005

Minutes of a Meeting of the Council held Wednesday, 2nd November, 2005

Meeting of the Council of the City of Sheffield held in the Council Chamber within the Town Hall, Sheffield, on Wednesday, 2nd November, 2005, pursuant to notice duly given and Summonses duly served.

PRESENT

THE LORD MAYOR (Councillor Roger Davison)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR (Councillor Jackie Drayton)

1 Arbourthorne Ward			10 Dore & Totley Ward			19 Mosborough Ward
Julie Dore			Anne Smith			Mike Peat
John Robson			Mike Waters			David Barker
Tim Rippon						Sam Wall

2 Beauchief/Greenhill Ward			11 East Ecclesfield Ward			20 Nether Edge Ward
Anthony Holmes			Pat Fox			Ali Qadar
Simon Clement-Jones			Vic Bowden			Pat White
Clive Skelton			Graham Oxley

3 Beighton Ward			12 Ecclesall Ward			21 Richmond Ward
Ian Saunders			Sylvia Dunkley			Martin Lawton
Chris Rosling-Josephs						John Campbell
Helen Mirfin-Boukouris						Terry Barrow

4 Birley Ward			13 Firth Park Ward			22 Shiregreen & Brightside Ward
Bryan Lodge			Joan Barton			Jane Bird
Mike Pye			Chris Weldon			Peter Price
Denise Fox			Alan Law			Peter Rippon

5 Broomhill Ward			14 Fulwood Ward			23 Southey Ward
Paul Scriven			John Knight			Tony Damms
			Andrew Sangar			Gill Furniss
			Janice Sidebottom

6 Burngreave Ward			15 Gleadless Valley Ward			24 Stannington Ward
Ibrar Hussain			Terry Fox			Arthur Dunworth
Steve Jones			Rosemary Telfer			David Baker
						Vickie Priestley

7 Central Ward			16 Graves Park Ward			25 Stocksbridge & Upper Don Ward
Jean Cromar			Peter Moore			Martin Davis
Jillian Creasy			Ian Auckland			Martin Brelsford
Mohammad Azim						Alison Brelsford

8 Crookes Ward			17 Hillsborough Ward			26 Walkley Ward
Brian Holmes			Robert MacDonald			Diane Leek
John Hesketh			Janet Bragg			Veronica Hardstaff
Sylvia Anginotti			Alf Meade			Jonathan Harston

9 Darnall Ward			18 Manor Castle Ward			27 West Ecclesfield Ward
Mary Lea			Pat Midgley			Kathleen Chadwick
Harry Harpham			Jan Fiore			Alan Hooper
Mohammad Altaf			Jan Wilson			Trevor Bagshaw

						28 Woodhouse Ward
						Marjorie Barker
						Mick Rooney
						Ray Satur
	1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
		Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Leigh Bramall, Kate Dawson, Keith Hill, Barry Jervis, Shaffaq Mohammed, Andrew White and Garry Weatherall.

	2.	MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
		RESOLVED: On the motion of Councillor Pat Midgley, seconded by Councillor Jean Cromar, that the minutes of the meetings of the City Council held on 5th October, 2005, be approved as a correct record.

	3.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
		Petitions
		The Council received petitions containing (a) 21 signatures of residents of Picking Lane, Ecclesfield, expressing concern regarding proposals to provide a bus interchange on Ecclesfield High Street, which they feel would signal the demise of Ecclesfield as a village and after hearing representations made on behalf of the petitioners by Mrs. Glenda Thorpe and comments made by Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, indicating that the concerns expressed by the petitioners would be considered as part of a consultation exercise being undertaken by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive with regard to bus services in the Ecclesfield area, referred the petition to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive;
		(b) 28 signatures of residents of sheltered housing at Frostings Close, Packman Way and Packman Close, drawing attention to a large number of defects in the maintenance and structure of their premises and calling upon the Council to take action to address the problems and after hearing representations made on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Keith Wainwright, and comments made by Councillor Chris Weldon, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Neighbourhood Regeneration, who indicated that he would discuss the problems with Officers of Sheffield Homes and arrange for a site visit by himself and the Officers, referred the petition for further consideration by Councillor Weldon;
		(c) 14 signatures of residents of Abbey View Road, demanding that the sale of their leaseholds are withdrawn from auction on 2nd November, 2005, and that the right to purchase the freehold is offered to the existing home owners and referred the petition to the attention of Councillor Steve Jones, Cabinet Member for Finance and Property;
		(d) 16 signatures objecting to the siting of a telephone mast at Shiregreen Lane and referred the petition for consideration by the City Centre, South and East Planning and Highways Area Board; and
		(e) 37 signatures of residents of Burcot Road, expressing their opposition to proposed traffic calming measures on Burcot Road and calling on the Council to cancel the planned measures and referred the petition for consideration by the City Centre, South and East Planning and Highways Area Board.

		(NOTE: Councillor Ray Satur declared an interest in paragraph (a) above relating to bus services at Ecclesfield and did not speak or vote thereon.)

		Public Question Re: Properties at Cliffe Road, Stannington
		Mr. Brian Garner asked a question with regard to the actions to be taken by the City Council concerning properties at Cliffe Road, Stannington and referring to previous approaches made in connection with such properties.
		In response, Councillor Chris Weldon, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Regeneration indicated to Mr. Garner that he was awaiting further information in connection with the properties but assured him that he would be contacting him on this matter in the near future.

		Public Question Re: Park Hill Flats
		Mr. Peter MacLoughlin asked questions with regard to the future of Park Hill Flats and in particular the relationship between the proposed developers, Urban Splash and the City Council with the possibility of conflicts of interest and the overall question of the actions taken by English Heritage in classifying the flats as a Grade 2 Listed Building together with the actions taken by the City Council in connection with this process and in response, Councillor Jan Wilson, the Leader of the City Council, expressed the view that Urban Splash had every right to voice their opinion with regard to Park Hill Flats and that she did not believe that any conflict of interest existed at the present time and with regard to the listing of Park Hill Flats stressed that it had been made clear to the City Council when the issue of listing first arose that only English Heritage could undertake such listing and that to the best of her knowledge all issues in this matter had been put before the City Council prior to the listing.

		Public Question Re: Local NHS Provision
		Angela Barney asked a question with regard to the future of Health Trusts in the City particularly in the light of the funding arrangements for the Primary Care Trusts and in response, Councillor Clive Skelton, Chair of the Health and Community Care Scrutiny and Policy Development Board, indicated that he would hold discussions with Officers with regard to this matter being presented to the Board for consideration.

	4.	DEVELOPING THE ROLE OF SCRUTINY AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT BOARDS
		The Council received a presentation from Mr. Gareth Wall, Research and Information Adviser at the Centre for Public Scrutiny, on recent developments in relation to Local Authorities' public scrutiny function.
		Mr. Wall referred particularly to a recently published piece of research which had been undertaken on behalf of the Centre for Public Scrutiny by Steve Leach, Professor of Local Government at De Montfort University, Leicester and which drew on his extensive research, consultancy experience and first hand knowledge of the overview and scrutiny function of many Local Authorities.
		Outlining the findings of the report, Mr. Wall referred to the criteria of effective scrutiny which had been identified by Professor Leach and which related to (a) developing policy recommendations which the Executive accepts, (b) influencing decisions and policies by persuading the Executive to change its mind; (c) influencing the community leadership role of the Council and (d) contributing to democratic renewal by stimulating public engagement and open leadership and expressed the view that developing policy recommendations was a crucial criteria in the delivery of effective scrutiny; the second criteria was a measure of effectiveness of the scrutiny process; and the final two criteria reflected the CfPS principles with the final criteria particularly being seen as permitting the "public voice" even if, when scrutinising external organisations, tangible outcomes were relatively small.
		Mr. Wall went on to refer to the findings by Professor Leach as to how progress had been made by Local Authorities against the CfPS's major principles.
		Professor Leach felt that all recent evidence had suggested that most Authorities had struggled to hold their Executives to account with the challenge of acting as a "critical friend" proving difficult. Better progress however had been made in the principle of "reflecting the public voice" where many Authorities had used means of co-opting the public to scrutiny bodies, and the use of "mystery shopper" techniques and expert witnesses to inform scrutiny exercises although it had been recognised that there was a danger of not engaging the wider public but rather engaging persons who were regular contributors to public life in the Authority's area. A third CfPS principle with regard to the progress of scrutiny related to "leading and owning the process (community leadership)" and Mr. Wall indicated that there was a danger of scrutiny bodies acting as Committees thereby eliminating robust critique or challenges. To this effect, research had found that the "call-in" process was used either as a political tool or a "nuclear option" as an indication that Council procedures failed to resolve disagreement adequately which reflected a misunderstanding of the importance of call-in which, if used responsibly, provided a key mechanism for holding the Executive to account and contributed materially to the democratic vitality of the Authority. The fourth principle relating to "making an impact on service delivery (performance and quality assurance)" had, in many cases, created uncertainty with regard to responsibility for performance and quality assurance with many Authorities needing to establish clear patterns of responsibility in this area with particular use being made of the "traffic light system".
		Referring to major barriers to improvement which had been identified, Mr. Wall commented upon the resilience of certain aspects of party politics which it was held could affect personal relationships and prevent delivery of effective scrutiny and the conflicting demands of community leadership which, although a body of evidence did not exist in this regard, it was believed led to a situation whereby partnerships which had been established between Local Authorities and other bodies, might be adversely affected by critical scrutiny exercises. A further barrier to improvement was perceived as the resilience of inappropriate structures and processes and that means of overcoming this difficulty were viewed as moving the venues of meetings, adopting different reporting formats and seating arrangements. Finally, the limitations of dedicated support were also viewed as a barrier to improvement with many Councils not having separate scrutiny sections, possibly therefore, leading to a culture of unified officer advice which would inhibit effective scrutiny.
		Concluding the presentation, Mr. Wall referred to various pieces of work which had been undertaken by the Centre for Public Scrutiny in addition to the work undertaken by Professor Leach and which were aimed at improving the delivery of scrutiny throughout Local Authorities. This work included an examination of the relationship between overview and scrutiny and the voluntary and community sector, the first report from the three year evaluation of health scrutiny undertaken by the University of Manchester; a self-evaluation framework for overview and scrutiny and a report of the 2005 Annual Conference of the Centre for Public Scrutiny.
		Following the presentation, the Lord Mayor, Councillor Roger Davison, invited Members of the City Council to ask questions of Mr. Wall.
		Councillor Pat Midgley, referred to those scrutiny issues where the Local Authority did not have the power to impose its findings upon outside organisations and which might lead to disappointment on behalf of the electorate with regard to the inability of the Local Authority to effectively deliver the outcomes of the scrutiny exercise. Councillor Midgley also compared the scrutiny structure with the previous Committee structure of the Authority and expressed the view that within the Committee structure work was undertaken which achieved consensus of opinion rather than polarising views.
		In response Mr. Wall indicated that Local Authorities needed to be aware of those expectations of the community which could not be fulfilled and that this situation had to be made clear at the outset of the scrutiny exercise. He felt however that the legitimacy of undertaking such exercises outweighed this particular problem. So far as Committees were concerned he stated that many Councils were indicating that they preferred the scrutiny system to the former Committee system and that feelings of disenfranchisement by back benchers were now being eroded.
		Councillor Andrew Sangar in referring to the Local Government Act 2000, still believed that scrutiny was difficult to develop to a degree in which it would be better than the former Committee system. In his opinion, there was a low level of public involvement and that, there still existed a unified officer culture which had to be broken down. Gareth Wall referred to the City Council's practise of inviting public questions at the outset of meetings which he saw as being innovative and went on to stress that it was imperative that Authorities adopted those issues which would attract greater public involvement and that it was important to examine the experience of other Authorities with advice being sought from voluntary and community organisations.
		Turning to the question of unified officer advice he repeated his view that it was desirable for an independent Scrutiny Support Unit to be established which would challenge its Authorities culture.
		Commenting upon her perspective of scrutiny, Councillor Jillian Creasy believed that it had the ability to change situations and stimulate open debate but questioned its effectiveness in changing policy. She also asked if there were any recommendations for minimum training standards for Members in their scrutiny role and believed also that many Members who were not in the majority group felt that they were not being valued under the scrutiny structure and asked if there were any means of changing this situation. In response Mr. Wall referred to a survey undertaken by the Centre for Public Scrutiny which indicated that of those recommendations made to Executives in Local Authorities, around 87% of recommendations concerning policy had been adopted with a further 75% of recommendations outlining improvements being adopted. He was not aware of any minimum standards which had been identified for Member training but outlined various opportunities which existed for Member training throughout the Country. With regard to Councillor Creasy's last question he felt that this situation could be overcome by the use of smaller Working Groups and by giving opportunities for Members of minority groups to Chair scrutiny bodies.
		Councillor Jan Wilson expressed the view that, so far as policy development was concerned, this was almost exclusively within the realm of the party political mechanisms and that the situation made any other policy development opportunities difficult. She also referred to performance monitoring and the role of Cabinet Members who accepted responsibility for their particular area and asked how this fitted in to the scrutiny structure. In answer to these questions, Mr. Wall believed that policy development and review represented the most rewarding pieces of work for scrutiny and that in many Authorities the Executives were indeed asking scrutiny to examine policy development based on evidence given to scrutiny bodies. So far as performance and accountability was concerned he referred particularly to Professor Leach's report and the patterns of responsibility for performance monitoring. He believed that overview and scrutiny had the ability to identify areas of concern and require explanations of the Executive through regular attendance by Members of the Executive at scrutiny meetings.
		In response to a question from Councillor Pat White as to whether or not there was any monitoring mechanism with regard to comparisons with the Committee structure, Mr. Wall indicated that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had commissioned the University of Manchester to undertake research into the effects of the Local Government Act 2000, including overview and scrutiny and to evaluate comparisons; with this evaluation now being in its third year.
		Turning to the Health Scrutiny function, Councillor Robert MacDonald asked if any comparisons had been made between the effectiveness of Health Scrutiny and the service offered by the former Community Health Councils. He also asked if any work had been undertaken on the performance of Health Scrutiny. In response Mr. Wall stated that no comparisons had been undertaken with regard to the work of the former Community Health Councils but he believed that the work of those organisations was more closely mirrored by the Patient and Public Involvement Forums. So far as the performance of Health Scrutiny was concerned he referred to the work being undertaken by the University of Manchester which had indicated that 90% of Local Authorities had involved themselves in Health Scrutiny. He added that initial worries of breakdown of relationships between Local Authorities and Health Bodies had not materialised and that evidence had indicated that such relationships had been strengthened by the application of Health Scrutiny.
		Councillor Michael Waters asked what the situation was in other Authorities in relation to Executives changing their views as a result of scrutiny and also would it be better if the work of scrutiny bodies was more closely related to that of Parliamentary Select Committees as, in his view, back bench Members had a sense of disenfranchisement.
		In response, Mr. Wall indicated that there had been very few examples where scrutiny had encouraged the Executive to change its mind and added that there was a view that so far as comparisons with Parliamentary Select Committees were concerned, these Committees had far less scope for innovative working than Local Authority overview and scrutiny bodies.
		Councillor Ray Satur asked if Mr. Wall could give examples of joint scrutiny working between Local Authorities and also expressed the view that where there was a substantial numerical advantage enjoyed by the majority party in an Authority the situation leant itself to effective scrutiny work rather than in a hung Council where the political pressures were greater. Responding to these points Mr. Wall outlined the examples of Health Scrutiny where a number of joint exercises had been undertaken; he was however aware of only one other example outside Health Scrutiny of joint working. Commenting upon Councillor Satur's latter point, he gave the example of Westminster Council which had a large majority following but where effective policy development had been undertaken without challenging the Executive.
		In response to a question from Councillor Martin Davis as to means by which the public might be more fully engaged in the process, Mr. Wall indicated that there were many examples of co-option onto scrutiny bodies and that he believed the Local Government Act 2003 also allowed scrutiny bodies to give co-opted Members voting rights. Councillor Joan Barton expressed a degree of dissatisfaction with the scrutiny process and indicated that, in her view, the former Committee system was more effective in its contribution to service delivery with Working Groups and Panels being less politically orientated and more able to generate constructive policy development than the scrutiny system. She went on to state that former structures which had proven tried and tested were in her view more effective and that the only effective new contribution in the modernising agenda was the advent of Area Working.
		In conclusion Councillor Barton asked that if a Local Authority wished to revert back to the Committee structure, would that be a possibility.
		In response Gareth Wall indicated that it would not be possible for Local Authorities to revert back to their former political management structures. He stressed that the scrutiny system not only provided innovative means of political management but also introduced new important areas such as Health Scrutiny and that research work by the University of Manchester indicated that Members felt their scrutiny role was fulfilling. In conclusion he believed that the example of Health Scrutiny would soon be adopted in other external areas such as the Police.
		In response to questions from Councillor Veronica Hardstaff relating to the funding of the Centre for Public Scrutiny, its remit and the experience of its staff in Local Government administration, Gareth Wall outlined the history of the organisation since its establishment in 2003, its funding structure and the career backgrounds of the five members of staff, together with the membership of its Managing Board and its links to other organisations such as the LGA, CIPFA and the Democratic Health Network. He concluded by indicating that the remit of the organisation was to support the development of public scrutiny with the house slogan of "Better Scrutiny for Better Government".
		Councillor Scriven asked if any research had been undertaken into the relative effectiveness of the Parliamentary scrutiny system and Local Government, if any Authority had introduced programmes which allowed their citizens to set targets and what the CfPS believed was the real power that Members had to hold the Executive to account.
		In response Mr. Wall indicated that he was not aware of any comparative research between scrutiny structures within Parliament and Local Government nor of any Authority which had permitted citizens to set performance targets. He also believed that the scrutiny system did encompass means by which back bench Members could hold the Executive to account.
		In response to a question from Councillor Mick Rooney as to the possibility of scrutiny being introduced in connection with Joint Boards, Mr. Wall believed that such scrutiny already existed under the "well being" remit of Local Authorities and that a number of examples of such scrutiny existed. Responding to Councillor Rooney's question regarding comparisons which had been taken into the effects of the three modernising structures, he went on to indicate that the University of Manchester were conducting research into the system.
		In conclusion, and commenting upon a question raised by Councillor John Robson regard a possible conflict between the unanimous views expressed by the Children and Young People Scrutiny and Policy Development Board in support of an application to be made by the Sheffield Children's Hospital Trust for Foundation Status and an amendment on this matter to be moved later in the meeting and opposing such application, Mr. Wall believed that the two situations were not mutually exclusive and that whilst the decision of the Scrutiny Board demonstrated the apolitical nature of the scrutiny process, the proposal before Council reflected party political views.
		The Lord Mayor, Councillor Roger Davison, thanked Mr. Wall for his presentation.

	5.	REPRESENTATION
		RESOLVED: On the motion of Councillor Pat Midgley, seconded by Councillor Jean Cromar, that (a) approval be given to the following changes to Membership of Boards etc. and the appointment of representatives to serve on other bodies:-

		Spokesperson (Shadow Cabinet Member) for Environment and Transport		-	Councillor Sylvia Dunkley to replace Councillor Martin Brelsford

		Children and Young People Scrutiny and Policy Development Board		-	Councillor Alan Law to replace Councillor Marjorie Barker

		Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Board		-	Councillors Jean Cromar and Martin Lawton to replace Councillors Marjorie Barker and Rosemary Telfer

		Health and Community Care Scrutiny and Policy Development Board		-	Councillor Jane Bird to replace Councillor Janet Bragg

		South Yorkshire Pensions Authority		-	Remove the na