Minutes of the Council Meeting held 5th April 2006

Minutes of a Meeting of the Council of the City of Sheffield held in the Council Chamber within the Town Hall, Sheffield, on Wednesday, 5th April, 2006, 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
	Keith Hill	Sam Wall

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

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

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
Alan Whitehouse	Andrew Sangar	Leigh Bramall
Shaffaq Mohammed		Gill Furniss

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

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

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

		28 Woodhouse Ward
		Marjorie Barker
		Mick Rooney
		Ray Satur

1.	CHAIR OF THE MEETING
	In the absence of The Lord Mayor (Councillor Roger Davison) at the start of the meeting, the Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Jackie Drayton) occupied the Chair.

2.	APOLOGIES
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Terry Barrow, Trevor Bagshaw, Martin Davis, Pat Fox, Tim Rippon, Janice Sidebottom and Andrew White.

3.	RESIGNATION OF FORMER COUNCILLOR KATE DAWSON
	The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Jackie Drayton) reported that Kate Dawson had resigned as a Member of the City Council with effect from 23rd March, 2006, and Members paid tribute to her contribution to the work of the Council and the able manner in which she had performed her duties, particularly as Chair of the South West Area Panel.
	RESOLVED: On the motion of the Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Jackie Drayton), seconded by Councillor Paul Scriven, that this Council places on record its appreciation of the valuable service rendered to the City Council by former Councillor Kate Dawson over a period of 10 years.

4.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

4.1	Petitions
	(a) Petition concerning Bus Priority System at Burngreave Road
	The Council received a petition containing 214 signatures expressing opposition to the development of a bus priority system at Burngreave Road on the basis that it will hinder parking, cause residents’ privacy to be invaded, make their community less attractive, result in further road closures and that they have not received sufficient information on the proposals.
	The Council referred the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport (Councillor Terry Fox).

	(b) Petition concerning Pavements at Gleadless Valley
	The Council received a petition containing 128 signatures requesting urgent action to repair the dangerous/broken pathways, pavements and road surfaces in the vicinity of homes in Gleadless Valley and referred the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Streetscene, Parks and Greenspaces (Councillor Harry Harpham).

	(c) Petition concerning Sheffield and District Afro Caribbean Community Association (SADACCA) Day Care Centre
	The Council received a petition containing 29 signatures of users of the SADACCA Elderly Day Care Centre expressing concern that the provision of their home care support is to be transferred from SADACCA Support Services to the ACCESS Team Home Support Service of Neighbourhoods and Community Care and that, with the new charging culture, they were about to be denied the privilege of going to the SADACCA Day Care Centre when they wanted to.
	The Council referred the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services (Councillor Mick Rooney).

	(d) Petition concerning Pension Payments
	The Council received a petition containing 310 signatures requesting support for a request to the Government to reconsider its proposals to cease paying pensions through card accounts at Post Offices, as it will lead to loss of business and closures, which will remove a vital facility from local communities and cause hardship to local people, particularly pensioners.
	The Council referred the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services (Councillor Mick Rooney).

	(e) Petition concerning increased charges for Non-residential Care Services
	The Council received a petition containing 240 signatures supporting the campaign being conducted by the Sheffield Coalition against Community Care Charges and calling upon the Council to (i) reverse the decision made at the full Council meeting on 1st March 2006, (ii) repeal the part of its 2006-07 budget agreed on 3rd March 2006, (iii) carry out genuine and meaningful consultation with service users and carers about what these increases will mean to them, (iv) accept that the real affect of these increases will be that many disabled and older people will stop using the services they need to live independently and safely at home because they cannot afford the charges, and (v) accept that no increase in charges should be made at all.
	The Council heard representations made on behalf of the petitioners by Ms Laurie, who claimed that the massive and unfair increases in non-residential care charges proposed by the Council represented a disrespectful attack on older and disabled people, with a decision being taken by people who did not know the reality of their situation and without any meaningful consultation. She asserted that the Council’s claims that those people who could not afford to pay would not have to pay were untrue and cited a number of examples of people who were frightened by the increased charges they would have to pay, despite being told that all would be reassessed before the charges were implemented. She highlighted the extra pressure that would be placed on hospitals if people stopped having the care services. She also referred to recently published reports by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the King’s Fund, which suggested that the charges were unfair and should be abolished. She claimed that the Council had only embarked on further consultation, following the adverse criticism received at the Cabinet meeting on 22nd February, 2006. She felt that the meeting organised by the Council on 14th March, 2006 could not be described as consultation and that the letter and pro-forma questionnaire sent to service users was insulting.
	Ms Laurie asked if any option other than increasing the charges had been put to people and, if not, why not? Had any vote been taken at the meeting to gauge support for the increases? In the 761 responses from users, how many were in favour of the increases and what level of response had been received from ethnic minorities? She also called upon the Council to take a decision on the proposed increases at this meeting, rather than by one officer and one Councillor under delegated powers, and have a record of the vote.
	In response, the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services (Councillor Mick Rooney) admitted that increasing charges for non-residential care was not an easy political decision to make and one from which he derived no enjoyment. He repeated what he had said on previous occasions that if anyone could suggest a viable, realistic alternative, he would consider it and pointed out that the major opposition group had not submitted alternative proposals for discussion by the Council. He referred to a variety of methods used as consultation on the proposals, which included public meetings, presentations to various Partnership Boards, interviews on Radio Sheffield, articles in The Star newspaper and letters sent to service users. He explained that alternative proposals would include taking £1.7m out of the Adult Services budget and raising the eligibility criteria to critical needs only, which would have a similar effect on hospitals to that which Ms Laurie alluded to. He asked her to provide him, with names and addresses of those people who she claimed were frightened and he would try to arrange for reassessments to be done. He undertook to provide Ms Laurie with written information on the issues she had raised about the pro-forma responses. He stressed that the Council had an over-riding responsibility to set a realistic, as opposed to an opportunist, budget that balanced. Whilst he had been accused of lots of things, he was satisfied that this was the honest way of making a decision.
	The Council formally referred the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services (Councillor Mick Rooney)

	(Note: Prior to the above decision being taken, it was moved by Councillor Paul Scriven and seconded by Councillor Peter Moore, that the petition be referred to the Health and Community Care Scrutiny and Policy Development Board in order that an independent view on the decision and process could be taken.

	The votes on the decision to refer the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services and to reject the motion to refer it to the Health and Community Care Scrutiny and Policy Development Board were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

	For the decision to refer the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services and to reject the motion to refer it to the Health and Community Care Scrutiny and Policy Development Board - (41)	Councillors Julie Dore, John Robson, Ian Saunders, Chris Rosling-Josephs, Helen Mirfin-Boukouris, Bryan Lodge, Mike Pye, Denise Fox, Ibrar Hussain, Steve Jones, Jean Cromar, Mary Lea, Harry Harpham, Mohammad Altaf, Joan Barton, Chris Weldon, Alan Law, Terry Fox, Rosemary Telfer, Garry Weatherall, Robert MacDonald, Janet Bragg, Alf Meade, Pat Midgley, Jan Fiore, Jan Wilson, Mike Peat, David Barker, Sam Wall, Martin Lawton, John Campbell, Jane Bird, Peter Price, Peter Rippon, Tony Damms, Leigh Bramall, Gill Furniss, Veronica Hardstaff, Marjorie Barker, Mick Rooney and Ray Satur.

	Against the decision to refer the petition for consideration by the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services and to reject the motion to refer it to the Health and Community Care Scrutiny and Policy Development Board - (30)	Councillors Tony Holmes, Simon Clement-Jones, Clive Skelton, Paul Scriven, Alan Whitehouse, Shaffaq Mohammed, Mohammad Azim, Brian Holmes, John Hesketh, Sylvia Anginotti, Keith Hill, Vic Bowden, Graham Oxley, Sylvia Dunkley, John Knight, Andrew Sangar, Peter Moore, Ian Auckland, Barrie Jervis, Ali Qadar, Pat White, Arthur Dunworth, David Baker, Vickie Priestley, Diane Leek, Jonathan Harston, Alan Hooper, Jillian Creasy, Anne Smith and Mike Waters.

	Abstained (1)	The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Jackie Drayton)

4.2	Public Questions
	(a) Public Questions concerning Regional Casinos
	Graham Wroe referred to the Council’s application for Sheffield to be considered as a potential location for a regional casino and to the additional traffic congestion that this would create in the Lower Don Valley and asked how the proposal would benefit the local economy.
	James Grenfell enquired if the plans showed appropriate sensitivity to Sheffield’s multi-cultural population, given that the potential casino sites were located near to Muslim communities.
	David Sorrill asked if the Council would be taking into account the key findings of the Hall Aitken report on the Social and Economic Impact of Casinos in the United Kingdom, which had concluded that the estimates of the economic benefits from a regional casino were optimistic and potentially misleading, that the social costs were potentially high for most locations and would outweigh any economic benefits and, on balance, the proposals would undermine the Government’s targets on neighbourhood regeneration.
	Father Shaun Smith drew attention to the issue of problem gamblers in Sheffield, of which there were an estimated 10,000 in Sheffield and was expected to rise above 14,000 by 2010 and asked the Council to consider the social and economic cost of this to the country, which was estimated at £123m and was expected to rise a further £34m by 2010.
	Bernard Greenwood asked if any research had been done into the net effect of money being taken out of the local economy and placed in the hands of casino owners.
	Neville Martin referred to gambling being the causes, in many cases, of family break-ups and suicides and asked why the Council had agreed to make a casino application without having debated it in the Council meeting.
	In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Jan Wilson) pointed out that there would only be one casino in the region and that Sheffield had expressed an interest, following a debate in the Council over a year ago, which took account of advice given. She stated that Sheffield had three well-developed proposals for regional casinos from different operators, each having submitted full planning applications and that, along with other leisure activities in the area, the proposals would have significant benefits on the local economy, particularly as they would be located in areas of deprivation. If Sheffield was to be successful, arrangements would be put in place to ensure that local people would benefit from training and job opportunities and sensitivity would be directed towards multi-cultural interests. The proposals would have to contribute to neighbourhood regeneration and benefits would be created through the supply chain of developing and servicing the casino.
	Councillor Wilson pointed out that the Hall Aitken report was one of many reports that had been produced on this subject. She stated that the Sheffield First Partnership had considered a report on the benefits and potential disbenefits of a regional casino and drew attention to the consultation work that was being carried out by the Bishop of Sheffield, through the Sheffield First Partnership, who had asked him to report back on his findings so as to ensure that any negative socio-economic impacts were mitigated. She also highlighted the increase in unregulated internet gambling that was putting people at more risk, as opposed to the significant controls that there would be with the casino. As to money being taken out of the economy, she conceded that some money would go to the casino owners, but it was hoped that, overall, there would be a regeneration of the local economy.

	(b) Public Question concerning charges for non-residential care services
	Mr Ian Newton-Smith stated that the public meeting that he had attended on 14th March, 2006 to discuss charges for non-residential care services was, in his opinion, scandalous and that there had been more questions asked than answers given. He asked why, when the Council was aware of a potential shortfall in the budget half way through the previous year, it had waited until 14th March for a consultation meeting called at short notice in an unsuitable location and then have the cheek to call it consultation? He raised concerns over the number of calls that hadn’t been made by service providers to users. He also stated that, whilst £25m had been allocated for free travel for senior citizens and mobility pass holders, there were 3,000 people in Sheffield with disabilities who could not use buses and will not get any benefit.
	In response, the Cabinet Member for Social Regeneration and Adult Services (Councillor Mick Rooney) undertook to pass on Mr Newton-Smith’s comments about the public meeting arrangements on 14th March to the appropriate officers. He referred to his previous comments in relation to the petition presented to the Council and stated that, apart from the proposed increase in charges, the biggest single issue was the quality of home care given by private service providers, including complaints about punctuality, missed calls and visits cut short. As the Council was in the process of retendering for the Home Support Contracts, these complaints and the monitoring of performance would be taken into account and shared with the Charging Commission.
	Mike Higgins expressed disappointment that the Council had not referred the petition to the Health and Community Care Scrutiny and Policy Development Board and questioned why the Council in setting its budget had earmarked £2.5m for reserves, when £1.7m was needed to offset the increases in care charges. He suggested that the Council should have generated less reserves rather than penalising each service user £750. He queried whether the 2,421 people mentioned in the latest report that had been prepared could afford to pay the increased charges and drew attention to the effect on his personal circumstances of the proposed increases. He also asked whether Councillor Rooney agreed with the conclusions in the Derek Wanless Report about the unfairness of care charges. On behalf of Mr. George Fulwood, who had left the meeting, Ms Laurie asked, out of the 761 respondees, how many people supported the proposed increases in charges?
	In response, Councillor Rooney stated that a range of answers had been given in the questionnaires and that, whilst a number of different issues had been raised, there was generally little support for the increased charges. He asserted that the conclusions of the Wanless Report were open to debate but, inevitably, these things had to be financed. The Council was in favour of providing a whole range of services, but they would have to be met from increases in taxes. Councillor Steve Jones clarified that, in setting the Council’s budget, an extra £3m had been put into Adult Services, but there were no measures to put extra money into the Council’s reserves. He suggested that Mr Higgins was referring to the situation created by alleged financial irregularities at the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit which it was anticipated would be addressed through the use of approximately £3m reserves so that the issue did not impact on services or the Council Tax payer.
	Mr. Higgins also wished to ask supplementary questions, but was advised by the Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Jackie Drayton) to submit them in writing to Councillor Rooney who would respond accordingly.

5.	MOTION TO SUSPEND STANDING ORDERS
	It was moved by Councillor Paul Scriven, seconded by Councillor Ian Auckland, that Standing Order A14(a)(v) be suspended to enable the report that had been prepared on proposed increases in charges for non-residential care services to be considered at this Council meeting under a Notice of Motion to be put forward.

	On being put to the vote, the motion was negatived.

	The votes on the motion were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

	For the motion – (31)	Councillors Tony Holmes, Simon Clement-Jones, Clive Skelton, Paul Scriven, Alan Whitehouse, Shaffaq Mohammed, Mohammad Azim, Brian Holmes, John Hesketh, Sylvia Anginotti, Keith Hill, Vic Bowden, Graham Oxley, Sylvia Dunkley, John Knight, Andrew Sangar, Peter Moore, Ian Auckland, Barrie Jervis, Ali Qadar, Pat White, Arthur Dunworth, David Baker, Vickie Priestley, Diane Leek, Jonathan Harston, Kathleen Chadwick, Alan Hooper, Jillian Creasy, Anne Smith and Mike Waters.

	Against the motion – (41)	Councillors Julie Dore, John Robson, Ian Saunders, Chris Rosling-Josephs, Helen Mirfin-Boukouris, Bryan Lodge, Mike Pye, Denise Fox, Ibrar Hussain, Steve Jones, Jean Cromar, Mary Lea, Harry Harpham, Mohammad Altaf, Joan Barton, Chris Weldon, Alan Law, Terry Fox, Rosemary Telfer, Garry Weatherall, Robert MacDonald, Janet Bragg, Alf Meade, Pat Midgley, Jan Fiore, Jan Wilson, Mike Peat, David Barker, Sam Wall, Martin Lawton, John Campbell, Jane Bird, Peter Price, Peter Rippon, Tony Damms, Leigh Bramall, Gill Furniss, Veronica Hardstaff, Marjorie Barker, Mick Rooney and Ray Satur.

	Abstained – (1)	The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Jackie Drayton)

	At this point in the proceedings, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Roger Davison) entered the meeting and occupied the Chair for the remainder of the proceedings.

6.	MEMBERS' QUESTIONS

6.1	Urgent Business
	A question purporting to relate to urgent business in relation to the proposed increases in charges for non-residential care, under the provisions of Standing Order A18(6), was ruled as inadmissible.

6.2	Written Questions
	A schedule of questions to Cabinet Members submitted in accordance with Standing Order A18(2) was circulated, which contained written answers, and supplementary questions under the provisions of Standing Order A18(4) were asked and answered by the appropriate Cabinet Members.

6.3	South Yorkshire Joint Authorities
	No questions were asked on the discharge of the functions of the South Yorkshire Joint Authorities for Fire and Rescue, Passenger Transport, Pensions and Police under the provisions of Standing Order A18(6).

6.4	Local Government Yorkshire and Humber
	No questions were asked on the discharge of the functions of Local Government Yorkshire and Humber under the provisions of Standing Order A18(6).